washington journal is next. ♪ good morning. the president, in california today. he returns to the white house tomorrow night it will be talking about jobs and the economy and tuesday. then he is off to a summit with the canadian prime minister and mexican president. governors are in town for the winter meeting. for the is out presidents' day holiday. we are going to begin with a new initiative on climate issues as outlined by the president last friday. california, proposing a $1

billion climate fund that will be part of his next budget. we will get you the details in a moment. we want to hear from you on this topic. host: you can join in on the conversation on facebook. you can also send us a tweet, c-spanwj. you can also send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. one of the headlines this morning from "the washington .ost," more climate cooperation

host: again, details available online drum "the washington post." we will get two more of your calls and comments on this issue and we will peer from the president as he outlined his thoughts on this issue on friday. first, a look at the other sunday shows and topics, all of which can be heard on c-span radio at noon eastern time. >> yes, on today's sunday tv talk shows the topics include the republican debt ceiling vote this last weekend and the senate agenda, foreign-policy issues, and the sochi winter olympic games. you can hear rebroadcasts beginning at noon eastern time with "meet the press." today's guests include mitt romney, as well as marsha

blackburn and scientist bill night. at 1 p.m. it is "this week," with patrick worry, eric garcetti, and actor kevin spacey. sunday,", "fox news with mike lee and xavier becerra, chairman of the house democratic caucus. followingthe union," at 3 p.m., with john mccain and austen goolsbee. at 4 p.m., "face the nation," with former republican senator jim demint, now president of the heritage foundation, and north carolina republican patrick worry. the network tv talk shows are on c-span radio and brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. "meet the is at noon.

press," followed at 2:00 by state of the union, and at 4 p.m. eastern time, "face the nation." you can listen to them all on c-span radio here in the acrosston, d c area, and the country find us on channel 100 20. you can download our free app for your smart phone or listen online. us onyou can also follow twitter and on c-span radio. thank you, nancy callow. a look at a plan that is getting a lot of attention in detroit. life in the shadow of the marathon plant. detroiters, wildlife, pollution, sharing a home. there was this editorial from two years ago. "no need to panic. from 16ing out scientists in this op-ed a couple of issues. first of all they write that co2 is not a pollutant, that it is a colorless, odorless gas expelled

-- exhaled at high concentrations by each of us and a key component in the lifecycle of the biosphere. they go on to write that "alarmism is a great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason or bureaucracies to for, offering excuse governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the system, and a luer for big charitable donations promising to save the planet. that editorial continues to get a lot of attention two years after it was published. we have more perspective on this issue, specifically on what the president announced on friday. thank you for being with us. caller: thank you for having me. focus on climate issues, $1 billion to study the topic, what is your take away? >> this is not money that he

has, this is money that he has to ask for as part of his budget next month. the money would go to, as you said, research into the effects of climate change on communities , incentives for communities to plan. but it is money that congress would have to appropriate. just over the weekend some republican senators were tweeting that it was another attempt by the president to politicize the weather and politicize the drought in california as a backdrop for the announcement. so, it is not clear if the money will be appropriated. how big a problem is this climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it? -- caller: that event you talk to, but scientists to make

a close link between drought and climate change, which is why the scientists likely used the drought as the backdrop for this announcement. the science there is pretty solid. most of california is experiencing a drought at the moment. it is a very big problem they are right now. piece this morning from "the washington post," california getting ready for record forest fires. the headline below that -- climate decided as a contributing factor. they have been dealing with record droughts. of course, many of these fires. your thoughts on this? oh -- well, forest fires are also events that scientists link, somewhat, to climate change. although he said the call with

reporters last week that it is true -- the president reiterated his view of this on friday, that individual events are not easy to link to climate change. at this point climate change might be linked to any number of weather events that we are already seeing, including forest fires and droughts. politicalerms of the battle that he is going to face, this is a time when congress is dealing with budget debts and dem -- deficits, does he have the support for this line item? caller: it was already a political struggle, and if you frame it with climate change, it becomes more of a political

struggle. some of the money is slated to go to climate change research. it will probably be a political battle. a couple of senators over the weekend in texas, tennessee, are tweeting that this was political stance. it is not something that is going to be a consensus. i would say that it will probably be hard to get that money. , a report --emnick reporter the covers climate change for "green wire." thank you for being with us early on a sunday morning. caller: thank you. ,ost: a review of a new book vice president al gore, the review is entitled "without a trace." the book is called the fifth extinction. "the sixth extinction." he makes a couple of points inside.

from jay is joining us sellersville, pennsylvania. $1 billion outlined by the president for climate issues. good morning to you, republican line. how are you? host: fine, thank you. are oftennservatives labeled as climate change deniers, often equated with holocaust deniers, it is such a religious fervor with these democrats. it is more of a belief system. but it is not, we all believe in climate change. we all know history. a all know that there was cataclysmic cyclical climate change that affected where you are sitting right now, one mile

of ice that began to received eight years ago. the american indians came across a frozen land bridge from india. theynts, immigrants, managed to get here because of the cyclical lima change. probably one million years from now there will be something else here. i do believe in climate change. i am probably about your age. back in the 1970's we were being scared every day about a coming ice age. i do not know if people who are 50 years old like me or in that age range member that. nova, my favorite show with mr. spock, used to show the pictures of the glaciers coming down. post of the magazines in eighth grade were talking about the coming ice age that would hit by the 1990's. i think that it speaks more to me of the psychological aspect.

think they just believe -- there is an arrogance and the megalomania, talking about the ability to bend the earth's temperature to our collective will. host: thank you very much for making that call and making your point. from our twitter account, there is this -- host: steve joins us next from haymarket, virginia. caller: i love the way that people talk about climate change. but they have no solution. they have not even use the scientific method to prove it. it is just laziness. there are two projects -- sorry, getting firewood, i am out of breath. there are two projects that employmentn 110% of to the american public. i don't know why this president

refuses to put everybody to work when he clearly can. thank you for the call. next is freddie, los angeles. caller: this subject seems to come up, it will come up for the next attorney the, some other scale, the government will have to be involved and take away our personal liberties. let's briefly go down the list. eugenics, wrong. edt, wrong. oil, alternative energy sources, wrong. listen to jimmy carter's speech on that again. global warming, wrong. population, wrong. taking over one third of the planet earth? wrong. how many times are we going to be fooled by these scare tactics to justify more government regulation of our personal lives?

host: one of our viewers has -- more onolitical" has the trip to california. in a journey with fitting our increasingly biblical climate, the president traveled on friday to historic washington -- from historic washington to bone dry fresno. the lack of rainfall has emptied the sierra mountains, the snowpack is responsible for a majority of california's water. more from the president. [video clip] a changing climate means more droughts, wildfires, storms and floods, which will potentially be costly and harsher. droughts have obviously been a part of life out here in the west since before any of us were around. water politics in california have always been complicated.

thattific evidence shows the changing climate is going to make them more intense. friday, inresident, fresno, california, we are talking about $1 billion in climate change funding being earmarked by the president. the next his will from albany, oregon. good morning, independent line. in terms of talking about carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it is clearly part of the excrement of humans. , fill a room up with it for 10 minutes, you will be dead. carbon dioxide is also a climate contributor, one of the main things that people do not understand is how much carbon by -- carbon dioxide people put into the earth. it absorbs energy. host: rebecca is next.

caller: i wanted to make a comment -- i went to school -- we learned that the world -- that we were coming into an ice age. and then when my children were in school in the late 1970's, 1980's, somewhere around there, they learned that we were cutting down the rain forest, that we had to stop coming down the rain for -- cutting down the rain forest. now they are saying we are putting it in the air? i do not think that giving the scientists more money is going to help them make up their mind what is going on. they change it. we go in a cycle. we always go in cycles. let anybody study their history. or their science. we do not need to pour more money and more people getting stuck in the middle of the ice, cruising. that we are having global warming or any such thing.

thank you. host: there is this from joe -- host: we have this tweet from senator mike leigh -- arnold, from smirnov, tennessee, is next. good morning, democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. ago youabout two months all had the head of greenpeace on your show. i've heard him make the following statement. he said -- if the world's temperature rises another three and a half degrees, it is over. that is the end of the human race, the end of the human species, and probably, you know, 90% of all species. that is what the man said. but then he said that we are on track to reach that three and a

half degree increase within the next 30 years to 50 years if we continue using and burning fossil fuel like we have been for the last 40 or 50 years. but then he said we still had time to stop it. that there is a way to stop it. but that there is only one way and this one and only one way to stop the earth from heating another three and a half degrees is to reduce our oil use by two thirds. he said that we had to leave two thirds of the oil still in the ground in the ground. you know? we cannot bring it up. and we cannot burn it. about two weeks ago on facebook i saw an article entitled -- the survival of the human race depends on the fate of keystone, xl, and fracking. it is by a man named david cost.com.om daily

he basically said the same thing. there is an answer to this. the answer is -- we need to quit using fossil fuel to power all of our cars, trucks, and buses. there is a way to do this. can do it isyou you can power electric -- we could make them all electric cars, trucks, and buses, power them not with batteries, but by compressed air. compressed air powered electric generators. for the call.u jodi says this -- host: richard lynn's in, the alfred p sloan professor from m.i.t., the subject of this piece from "the weekly standard." catastrophe"?

he does not tell us that the science has it right. accuse himt critics of doing a disservice to the scientific method, but i would suggest that in questioning the views and critics on the issues of global warming, subjecting them to specific tests, i am holding them to the scientific method. whoever is right about computer models, client -- climate sensitivity, water vapor, skepticism is essential to science. that is from "the weekly standard." york, good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you for your time. many people have been hearing that the arctic is warming at a rate faster than the rest of the globe, let me give you two reasons for that. the first is something called

albedo. it is what is node -- what is known as a positive feedback loop in it is very simple. ice colored things, like and snow, reflects sunlight and heat. dark colored things, like the lead -- like lead and the ocean, absorb heat. increase inan temperature. ice is melting as a result. and the ice melts, the land seas are exposed. instead of reflecting heat, it absorbs heat. there is a lot of ice in the arctic, which is one of the reasons it is warming faster. another reason, another positive feedback loop is the release of methane. there are vast quantities of methane under the shallow seas off the siberian coast tom off the coast of norway, and also frozen in the tundra in the northern climates. as we have this one in a half degree of increase, these

tundras are melting. you might have heard stories about houses collapsing because the permafrost is no longer permanent. there are oceans that used to be ice caps that are now open to air movement that causes the oceans to have waves that are disturbing the layer of methane that is trapped underneath these shallow seas. there are vast plumes of methane being released, either from these shallow oceans or from these tundras. the release of methane is very critical, because methane has 20 times the capacity of a warming greenhouse gas as co2. >> thank you for the call. the front page of "the washington post," a story that is getting a lot of attention, peace talks in syria hitting an impasse. there is a related piece from sandy berger inside the opinions

section of "the washington post." let me read to you what they are reporting. no date is set for resuming talks on syria, the u.s. sponsored peace talks ended in an impasse yesterday over the future president assad as the obama administration flashed out in frustration at russia, accusing it of prolonging the conflict. elma is joining us from liberty, kentucky. good morning, welcome to the program. morning.ood host: good morning, how are you? caller: not good, i am pretty sick. but i have always wanted to call in and tell people to read revelations in the bible. everything is coming to pass, just like they wrote it about 2000 years ago. says that if jesus don't come back, there will be

no flesh left on this earth. we wore out the earth. the callnk you for from liberty, kentucky. this editorial from "the wall street journal." how to fight the unilateral president, focusing in this case on the epa. he is announcing that he plans to govern as much as he can by his lonesome, one of his tools is rewriting the laws on deregulation, congress inempting to override rules this election year. the environmental protection agency last month issued its latest attack on the coal industry. host: another energy related story from yahoo! news in north

dakota, now number two just behind texas, north dakota pumps a record 313.5 million barrels of oil. we have the story that we can show you. the dateline is bismarck, north from 2012, the sixth consecutive record year for oil production in north dakota, making it number two behind texas. alice is joining us from castleton, on hudson in indiana. no, it is castleton, new york, great white north. host: i apologize. caller: we are up to our hips and snow. host: go ahead, you are on the air. ok, steve. president obama is just saying a proposal. politicians can propose a lot of things that never really come true.

i will get to my cure for the problem in california. quit spending $2 billion per week in afghanistan. ok? coast.nia sits on the the entire state, a beautiful coastline, from san diego right up past -- right up to oregon. dubai, puerto rico, and the number of other countries without water, you build the seller of visitation reservoirs in land. if we can pump oil from montana to louisiana, gas from louisiana all over the country, why not from pipelines desalinization facilities into reservoirs? a surcharge,eryone a tax for using a certain amount of water. i live in an area where we have

a community well. watera surcharge for every three months. you want to cure the problem? you have to think simply. you have a resource near the ocean. you take the salt out. you pump it into reservoirs in linde. i have seen the reservoirs, they are huge but they are dry as a bone. call.thank you for the we appreciate it. joe says this -- host: again, "politico," writing about the president's announcement. they write that the president stresses a scientific understanding of how climate change makes events like the droughts more extreme, saying that we rarely understand the reasons for global five a change, but the intensity is

increasing in the drought prone regions. there is a new ad campaign, it began about five years ago, it includes the former speakers, nancy pelosi and newt gingrich. some of the ad campaigns from 2008 and 2009. [video clip] hello, i am nancy pelosi, lifelong democrat and speaker of the house. >> i am newt gingrich, i used to be speaker, lifelong republican. >> we do not always see eye to eye. >> no. but we do agree that we need cleaner forms of energy fast. >> if enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation that we need. >> together, we can do this. >> we did not wait for someone else to storm the beaches of normandy. we did not wait for someone else to guarantee civil rights. or to put a man on the moon.

for someonet wait else to solve the global climate crisis. we need to act, we need to act now. join us. together we can solve this. make your voice heard today. >> one of the latest ad campaigns on the issue of global warming and climate change, the president proposing $1 billion to study the issue. michael, dartmouth, massachusetts, good morning. warming -- good morning. caller: they say global warming? i am under one foot of snow. back in the 1970's after the gas crisis the big thing was the ozone layer. don't use hairspray. don't use right guard. we are all going to fry.

it is just another scam for the government to make money, to tax us on air and pollution. it is all a cycle. this is a big scam for people in washington to get rich. michael, thank you very much. "politicians are more concerned about reelection rather than solving problems. no real leadership at the national level. coming up in a few minutes, you may have your own thoughts about presidents, but what about first ladies? we will have our latest in the partnership with sienna, looking at first ladies and two comes out on top. meanwhile, front-page story from "the new york times here go a pre--- a piece on president lyndon johnson. there of luciture baines johnson, the youngest daughter of lbj and lady bird this point.h

tomorrow, monday, the lbj presidential library museum will announce details of the civil rights summit to be held here in april to commemorate president johnson's signing of the civil rights act, attended by three of the four living former presidents, jimmy carter, bill clinton, and president george w. bush -- perhaps president obama. it will be followed by celebrations on the 50th anniversary of johnson's initiative, medicare, the clean air act, the national endowment for humanities, head start, the requirements for seatbelts, warnings on cigarette packs, operating counterweight to the way he has been portrayed over the last decades, with focus previously and the vietnam war." the story this morning, front page of "the new york times." valerie, florida, democratic line, morning. good morning. i was calling to mention about the climate change.

one seemsct that no to talk about are the 87,000 jet flights across the united states every single day. that has got to have some affect. but no one seems to talk about that. a spacecrafts had in storage since the bush administration that was supposed to go up and stay in the lagrange area, an area that is in front of and behind the earth's orbit around the sun, where nothing moves. it was supposed to be based monitor the icecaps and ist effect the warm air doing to that. also, it seems very that we now have a farm bill to help subsidize farming for ethanol that has to be in gasoline.

not only are we paying for a farm bill, we are also being charged more at the gas pump. host: thank you very much for the call. this headline from "the journal-constitution," second storm, second chance, they have more control over their traffic and roadways. this from "the chicago sun-times," "melting misery," "could be dangerous conditions in chicago. oh some referring to chicago as of the bitteruse cold weather. josh it -- joshua, good morning. caller: what they were talking about in kansas, that is what they taught us in school, co2 would deteriorate the ozone layer and we would go into the global freezing. that had me scared when i was a kid, i was afraid to play in the rain, thinking about the acid rain. look underwere to

volcanoes, you would see the active volcanoes in the arctic melting some of that ice. volcanoes are what change the climate. there is more co2 coming out of volcanoes than anything else or anything that we can produce, especially within the last hundred years. lastly, we are nothing more than a flea on a dogs but it can be shaken off any time. host: thank you for the call. more than $1 billion is being asked for approval for study on the issue. [video clip] >> we have to act with more industry. the changing climate is already affecting coastal cities dealing with floods, western cities dealing with droughts. i have urged my administration to set new standards on the amount of pollution that carbon plants are allowed to dump into the air.

cleaner, --wards a a cleaner energy economy will not happen overnight, it will require tough choices. the debate is settled. climate change is a fact. when our children's children look us in the eye and ask us if we did everything we could to leave them with a more stable and -- more stable world with new sources of energy, i want to say that yes, we did. the president outlined additional money that he wants congress to approve to study the issue with additional reporting the weekend from "politico," and "the washington post." coming up, matt kibbe will be joining us to look at an issue that senator rand paul put front and center, the fourth amendment, surveillance programs, whether that is legal or if it violates the fourth amendment, and later we will talk about whether felons should

have the right to vote. first we want to take a look at a new poll out this weekend as part of our two-year series, looking at america's first ladies. [video clip] 1980r the first time since -- fifth i'm since 1982, sienna has released a survey on "the on theadies -- survey first ladies. number one, eleanor roosevelt. number two, abigail adams. shell obama came in fifth place. followed by hillary clinton. then lady bird johnson, martha washington, and rosalynn carter, rounding out the top 10. the director of the siena research institute is with us. dr., what do you see in this list? amazing about this survey is that five times, 32

years, we have interviewed historians, political scientists , scholars who study the presidency and institution of the first lady, the most amazing thing is the consistency over time. eleanor roosevelt is first every time. stands out as the quintessential american first lady. we were going to -- if we were going to put a picture of the first lady in the dictionary, it would be eleanor roosevelt. >> why is that? >> we look at two different categories. is she her own woman? again, eleanor roosevelt stands out. she was truly a trendsetting first lady. not only was she the partner and counselor for fdr, but she reshaped that institution. she told american women that they mattered and that they were important in political and social life.

clearly, eleanor roosevelt not only campaigned for fdr, she was instrumental in setting policy and the tone of the country during difficult years. she is well remembered for her entire time as first lady and the work that she did subsequent to being a first lady as well. she really was a modern trendsetter for that office. >> the current first lady, michelle obama, is on that list. is that a surprise, to have a current first lady? >> it is a little bit surprising. this is the first time, clearly, that she was included. the last time the survey was taken was just before the obamas took office. she enters at a pretty high level for a new first lady. she actually kind of bumps down hillary clinton to the six position. i think that michelle obama stands out on a number of the categories. her value to the country, her value to the president. being her own woman, most

especially. and also her growing accomplishments. interestingly, we also asked about which of the first ladies might these historians and political scientists imagine serving as president? while hillary clinton is clearly the number one choice, there is a fair amount of support for shell obama as at least hypothetical president of the united states in some future time. michelle obama enters at a high rate. hillary clinton, though, in 1993 when we took the same survey, during the early years of the clinton administration she entered the survey at that point as number two. it is not unprecedented, but it is impressive. >> two things i want to ask about on the top 10 list. only one republican is on the list, betty ford. why is that? >> there are two ways to understand that.

number one, many of these first ladies stand out as having accomplished a great deal. being first ladies that all first ladies aspire to. wrinkly, i think that we find that this is a survey of practicing historians, political's -- clinical scientists, many of whom are nested within the academy. frankly, as a group that group tends to be a little bit more towards the democrats than republicans. listnly republican on the is betty ford. several of the recent republican first ladies aid the list of first ladies who could have done more in office. no first lady first lady is a runaway choice, but laura bush, pat nixon, many eisenhower, all mentioned as first ladies who could have done more. clearly, eleanor roosevelt stands out. a couple of the first ones,

really before the era of partisan politics took place as we know it today, but there is a small bias that we can perceive amongst these historians and political scientists. thing, a lot of these first ladies are within our lifetime, beginning with jacqueline kennedy, michelle , bettylady bird johnson ford. is there another bias in their for contemporary first ladies? >> i think so. these first ladies are certainly far well better known to americans. but they have also had a much wider and more important role in the modern era than some of these early first ladies. still, it is still noteworthy to say that some of the early ones, abigail adams, dolly madison, clearly played important roles. martha washington makes the list. we are not without them.

but many of the first ladies, some of the ones who fall in the bottom five, during the civil war, with the notable exception -- notable exception of mary lincoln, are little known to many historians. with the notable exception of abigail adams, martha washington, dolly madison, truly it is the more modern first ladies who have been full partners in the sense that is known to those who follow the institutions of the first lady. full partners to their president. in the news each and every day, taking on issues, really not only just speaking to the country, but in many ways to the world about what and who america is. look at those bottom five. liza johnson, jane pierce -- mary lincoln has been on this list in the past, has she not? >> absolutely. that is most notable in talking about the bottom five.

mary lincoln has been among the bottom five each time we did the survey until this year. the other influence that we see in the survey sometimes is when there is new historical work and, or, new works of popular culture that open up the book a bit and tell the story of a first lady. the rating can move a bit. i think that mary lincoln, portrayed by sally field in the recent film about lincoln, and some of the literature on lincoln of late has given a bit of a wider perspective on her. she does not rise to the top, she remains near the bottom, about 10 places from the bottom, but her stature increases as ofre is more understanding the difficult situation she was placed in and no longer does thinking of her as someone who was mentally unstable, as she had been per trade for a long time. in many cases associated with one notable. and

first lady, florence harding, stands out near the bottom because more and more it is seen that she played some role in perhaps the correct -- the corrupt aspects of the harding administration. is nailed bying these historians as lacking integrity, scoring right at the bottom. others at the bottom are associated with little-known presidents. some of them, johnson and peers, who tend to book and the civil war, a time when we were looking for great leadership, it was not until lincoln, one of the most highly regarded presidents, took over, but the first ladies before and after the civil war were seen as giving very little value to the country, very little value to the presidency themselves. >> the siena research institute

did this in collaboration with c-span and our first lady series was last year. one of the new categories on the survey, greatest political asset . eleanor roosevelt, hillary clinton, jacqueline kennedy, nancy reagan. and there was one other new topic area, lasting legacy. again, eleanor roosevelt top to that. betty ford, hillary clinton, lady bird johnson. what is it about those five >> greatest political asset is a category that really matters now. no longer is the first lady only looked upon as being a white house steward, but rather an important political asset and ally of the president. eleanor roosevelt again stands out, she campaigned on behalf of the president, was sent out to negotiate with various constituencies.

she really stands out. hillary clinton, quite obviously, was instrumental in many of the policies of the clinton administration and is now seen as the first lady most likely to see -- to serve as president. on thatagan shows up list in a very positive sense, i think, as a political asset. the work that nancy reagan did as part of the reagan administration, and some kit -- some cases, really taking care of the president, negotiating with various constituencies, even with warring parties within the administration itself, she was seen as quite crucial during the reagan years. greatest lasting legacy? jackie kennedy deserves mention there. the 50th anniversary of the assassination of president kennedy. the nation was once again

reintroduced to the role that she played. not only in revitalizing the white house as an institution, but with the grace that she conducted herself, she truly was a model for the country at the time of the assassination, truly a legacy that has stood out not only for the country, but for the institution of first lady and the importance of that position to the entire country. she speaks, in many ways, to the heart and soul of our country, and good times, demanding times, and difficult times. >> that was a quick look at some of the topline results from "the siena research institute." their newest survey on the first -- first ladies. get more can information from our website, c-span.org. we hope that you tune in tomorrow evening, president's

day, as we conclude our series on america's first ladies, a special two-hour program reflecting on all the first ladies, from martha washington to michelle obama. is the president and ceo of freedom works. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. paul and freedom works, suing the president over the nsa spying program. lesbian with a fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution. "the right of people to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects, from unreasonable search and seizure. no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause supported by the oath and affirmation describing the place to be searched and persons to be seized. want to begin with the fourth amendment, that is the fundamental principle of your lawsuit. explain.

>> the government violated the principles that we are innocent until proven guilty. that you cannot have a general warrant that goes after the effects and the personal belongings of people, in this case the scooping up wi everybody's cell phone records, everybody's phone records, this so-called metadata, making this potentially the largest class in the history of jurisprudence. you are talking about potentially 300 million people , anyoneillion people who has made a phone call since 2006. extraordinary. white house security officials are saying that we are not listening to your phones. we are trying to figure out if there is a thread to who you are talking to and if there is suspicion, then we go to the courts and listen to what you are doing as a way to keep people safe. how do you balance security and

safety and civil liberties? guest: i would air on the side of in the visual liberties, that is the basis of what this country is about. the fourth amendment is important to understand that they themselves have a college solvedis program has not any crimes. it has not helped them to identify any potential bad actors. there is a practical argument against it, but there is a constitutional argument that matters and we should always air on the side of liberty over intrusive, expensive government. senator paul and freedom works outside the courthouse on wednesday. what is specifically in this lawsuit? this is specifically a class-action suit against the and members of his

administration is -- insisting that they admit to violating the amendment. we are not including first amendment claims or the rifle shots designed specifically to get this question answered. we are not looking for answers, we are looking to get them to stop. host: if others want to join, how can they do so? >> obviously the definition of the class, we want to make sure that we do it the right way. freedom works representatives, i would defer to the lawyers on that, but we are looking for -- we want some bipartisanship on this one. we would love to see someone like senator ron wyden get involved as an individual, not as a senator. let me share with the president said on this program. [video clip] the have ordered that

transition away would proceed in two steps. effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are numberps removed from a associated with a terrorist organization, instead of the current three. i have directed the attorney general to work with the foreign intelligence surveillance court so that during this transition. the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or, insert -- or in the case of a true emergency. i havetep two, instructed the intelligence community and the attorney general to use this transition to develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities that and fill the gaps that the program is designed to address without the government holding this metadata itself. back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program

comes up for reauthorization on march 28. during this time i will consult with relevant committees in congress to seek their views. then i will seek congressional authorization for the new programs as needed. was on january 17. this editorial, "the president calls for significant changes." have they been significant? guest: >> i don't think so. in some ways that is rearranging things inside of a system that is fundamentally wrong. it is not enough to continue to allow these faceless, nameless government agents in the executive branch to decide when it is right and wrong. we do not know exactly what they are doing. senator obama in 2005 was exactly on message when he criticized the patriot act and the fact that you did not have a day in court. you did not have

an adversarial judicial system. to quote him, no jury will hear your case, this is plain wrong. thinking has changed, we he was right then and wrong now. host: we welcome your phone calls. e-mail, or youn can contact us on twitter. alex is joining us from missouri, democratic line, good morning. how does this man talk about president obama question man -- obama? host: we missed your point. caller: [inaudible] president obama in the court? why not bush and cheney? question.reat i would point out that we were highly critical of the bush administration when they were doing this and are equally

critical of the obama administration. the reason we are suing the obama administration is because barack obama is in charge of the executive branch and is the one responsible for making sure that the executives and its agencies follow the constitution. init was george w. bush office today, we would do the exact same thing. we have received a number of e-mails and tweets on the patriot act, people calling it a direct result of 9/11. republicans supported the patriot act shortly after 9/11, saying it was mrs. terry. bipartisan panic after 9/11. often you see some of the worst legislation is passed without due consideration in hopes of solving some fundamental security problem. i think we should scrap the andiot act, start over,

have an open, rational conversation about this balance between security and liberty. we did not do that after 9/11. host: greg, good morning, independent line. find this subject to be way overblown. if we have evidence that the government is doing something malicious with the information, that is one thing, but why should we be so concerned -- if they are out to get the bad guys , then that should be ok, but if, you know, if i know i am not doing anything wrong, why should i be so concerned about this? i think this whole story is overdone and overblown. can you give me evidence that the government is taking my information and using it against me? if you can't, then you don't

really have a story. host: ok, we will get a response. guest: that is a great question. the american system was always designed to defend the innocent and force the government to prove some probable cause. but there is evidence that this data has been abused. there were stories a few months ago showing that nsa employees were actually stalking former boyfriends and girlfriends, wives and husbands, in an illegal way. ,f they will do that to them what assurances do you have that you cannot be targeted? of too seen the abuses much discretionary power at the irs and other federal agencies. we should not have to hope they are doing the right thing. there are checks and balances in our government and we should air on the side of liberty. we do not have to prove that we are innocent in order to prove that they are guilty.

how does this violate the data mining of phone calls? guest: obviously, we did not have cell phones when the bill of rights was written. host: but where is the violation of the fourth amendment? >> the reasonable expectation of privacy of our personal phone records. that is part of our belongings, or person, our home. that is where the violation takes place. host: richmond, virginia, you're on with matt kibbe, president and ceo of freedom works. caller: how are you doing? i am listening to what this man is saying, but i cannot imagine that these people are a bunch of bleeding heart liberals worried about the rights of people and all of that. we need to discuss the security of the united states of america. say, i have dealt with radio.

when you pick up the phone and start talking on it, everyone is listening, not only the government. you have private entities. you have people, if you can get the frequency, you can sit outside my house right now and listen to my conversation. radioshack does sell this equipment. laws against what you would call -- you would listen, but not to personal conversations. i think of what you are talking about is keeping the evidence of further access, if something were to happen, you could go back and searched through these records to determine who i was talking to. some odd entity that may be crime.d in some type of but if anyone is listening to me when i call home and i say -- fix me some breakfast or something like that, it will be

fine with me. even on the street the drug dealers by the gold bonds. you can purchase a telephone that the 7-eleven host: we will get a response. guest: we are not just talking about cell phones, but hardlines. the practical effect is that most people have cell phones today. i think this goes back to some fundamental violations. we have seen the chief executive and his administration go after individuals. in my new book, i write about how the fbi and robert kennedy signed off on this and went after martin luther king, tapping his phones. i think that we are talking about today the mass surveillance of all of the american people. i think we need to watch that. i think we need to be rightfully worrisome that the government might do something wrong.

i do not think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. that is the american tradition. host: you mentioned that you wanted this to be a bipartisan issue. pat leahy has been critical of the president using this program. will he join you in this lawsuit? guest: i hope that he does. i cannot speak for him. i am hoping that we get support. supportersmber of when we first announced our intention to do this last fall. we were joining with the aclu. i would hope that democrats will do this as well. i realize it is tougher for democrats to sue a democratic president. i suspect it would have been tougher for republican senators to sue a republican president. this transcends partisanship. it is not about politics. i hope this is something that everyone can agree on. there are basic rights that americans have. no president should be able to violate those. ast: our guest is matt kibbe,

graduate of grove city college. reducing thebout stranglehold on american -- by the government. always abuses their power eventually. every single time if they can do something, they will. guest: i think that is what we are learning. we are learning at the hard way. people that are skeptical of this lawsuit because we are suing barack obama, inc. about a --ld where you are giving in think about a world where you give unlimited discretionary power to ted cruz or rand paul. do you want that? i don't think anybody wants that. the whole point is that the individual comes first. the three branches of government are designed to keep each other in check. it is clear that the executive

branch has done way beyond the intentions of congress on this question. you are saying republicans and democrats start to raise questions. that is medication that something needs to be done. host: i want to turn to politics in a moment. karl is on the phone from chicago. democrats line. caller: how are you doing? i hate to say this -- he is a phony. at the time the patriot act was written, the resulting one person of notoriety from the conservative side. he is against the patriot act. attack on political barack obama. is trying to find something to smear president obama about.

we have to do everything that we can to try to discredit his presidency. he did not go after the congresswoman reauthorized. why not? guest: actually, we did. it is interesting. one of the things that has happened is continued revelations about the abuses of power under the patriot act. even jim sensenbrenner, i ranking republican on the committee of jurisdiction, who was the author, has expressed deep concerns and to worry about what has happened. he wants to revisit it. he wants to go back and figure out a way that we can better protect american citizens against this abuse of power. nonpartisan. -- if wee says this want a target on our backs, would this reduce the nsa spying? guest: i do not know.

that is a separate question. the question of whether or not going into iraq or these foreign wars was a good idea. in hindsight, $1 trillion later and although i've lost, -- all of the lives lost, we should question whether this foreign venture them is worth the lives and the cost. fundamentally, is it good foreign policy? host: front page of the new york times -- look at this headline. spying by an ally and tangled a u.s. law form. the list of those caught up in the global net. headsocial media users to of state, now includes another entry. american lawyers. the government of indonesia had retained a law firm. he reports that the nsa's australian counterpart notify

the agency that it was conducting surveillance of talks, including communications between indonesian officials and the american law firm. guest: it is amazing. the stories keep coming on this. allen in particular. i assume that there is some kind of a violation of client and attorney privilege. what is concerning to us and why we want it to the bottom of this is that the government story keeps changing. we hear denials and information. we would like to know what is going on. i think the american people have a right to know. host: is edward snowden hero? guest: when the dust settles, he might turn out to be a dissident. i am not sure yet. what ever think of edward snowden, i think transparency is a good thing. i think the american people need to know what their government is

up to. if innocent people have had their rights violated, we should pursue that. host: we learned that working for booz allen hamilton holding documents, hese was able to troll the internet easily and inexpensively. guest: yes. is the problem and the new information age. i have realized that the decentralization driven by social media and the internet is both incredibly liberating and incredibly democratizing. it also is this granular means of surveillance for the federal government. we need, as citizens, to take some ownership in defending our own rights. host: joining senator paul and freedom works was ken gooch and ellie. he was a gubernatorial candidate

and virginia -- ken cuccinelli. guest: he is a capable lawyer and he will do a good job on this case. we filed in virginia. toadds 28 team of lawyers -- a team of lawyers. they are capable of moving through the process. this is a serious class action. we hope to get to the supreme court. we hope to certify our class. we hope to get a positive decision. host: we will go to patrick in florida. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. iso not know if mr. kibbe such a source to go with. i remember him lobbying fiscal conservatives and ronald reagan, who tripled the national debt. a lot of your other colors stole my thunder. many countries have done away

with these cell phones called burners. texas spent $33 million protecting their present system from these cell phones. they are the number one contraband item in the prison system. not know what to do with the government. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot have too little or too less. i do not know what the right mix is. host: if you are able to get through, please turn down the volume. that will eliminate the echo. guest: i think the line is quite bright. they work quite we're -- they were quite clear. tobias should always be in favor of individual liberty. they are proving that there is a

crime or crossing a barrier. they have not done that yet. host: next is tony from chapel hill, tennessee. caller: good morning. matt, as soon as they passed the itriot act, i got leads -- took a while to pass, like they usually do. these people who think that i am not doing anything -- that is total bs. not only that, this opens an opportunity for an essay or security agencies to hold something over senators and congressmen. anyone that they need to manipulate, including people who dissent. as a veteran, i would say that everyone needs to wake up. if you are think you -- if you

think you are so innocent, they can come to your house and say they accuse you. with nothing. they do not need proof. it is national security. keep up the good work, matt. i love it. host: thank you, tony. guest: in this day and age, in , allcular, all of the lost of the complexity, all of the regulatory codes, essentially make us in violation of some law that we do not even know about. it is that incredible complexity and discretion -- discretion that makes you a potential target in the government's way. this is not about a democratic president. i would have the same concerns when senator cruz takes the presidency. i think it is important to understand that we need to make it less discretionary for any bureaucrat to target any

american citizen. we saw it in the regulations -- they allow bureaucrats to go after certain individuals trying to practice first amendment rights. we should not stand for it. as republicans, conservatives, democrats, liberals. host: you mentioned senator cruz. his never ending the ego trip -- a look back at the old boat to debtte to raise the ceiling. there is one thing i want to read you. try to get a sense of how he is viewed. watching was the man who caused it, senator ted cruz. his hands in his pocket and a satisfied grin on its face. the texas republican strolled over to the clerk's table to check on the vote count and was met with a look of disgust from bob corker. the feeling was widespread.

moments after he walks into the cloak room, four senators are merged and changed their votes to "aye." as hisged and smirked colleagues overcame his filibuster. guest: i think we can say for certain that dana milbank is not a fan of ted cruz. i think there is a little bit of fiction and a little bit of truth. there is a clash going on between the class of 2010 and the collapse of 2012. -- class of 2012. you have a number of younger members who actually came to washington doing what they said they were going to do. everything go republican that ran in 2010 or 2012 said that they would do something that the national debt. they would do something with spending. they would work to balance the budget. i would argue that ted cruz and rand paul and mike lee and some of these house members that have been so demonized are simply

doing what they said they were going to do. generally, while republicans that they would do. host: you have supported met devon in kentucky. why? guest: two reasons. mitch mcconnell's record on the national debt and balancing the budget -- and dealing with these basic issues as the republican senate leader. we think we need new leadership. kentucky, mitch mcconnell has already spent somewhere between a $7 million and $10 million trying to defend wherenate seat in a state mitt romney won by 21 points. he is now in a statistical dead heat with a no-name democrat. thatpublicans want to say seat, if it is about a republican majority and not just about mitch mcconnell's career, it would be smarter to go with devon. host: republican senate leaders

-- a debt ceiling crisis. if we had default it on the debt, that would have sent the stock market down and created a lot of uncertainty. mitch mcconnell says he did what he needed to do. guest: the bulk of the house and the senate have been particularly inept at negotiating some sort of budget. remember when they took office or in -- office. they had promised some serious spending cuts. they have been losing that fight ever since. mitch mcconnell engineered the back away from the sequester. i think that somebody else needs to take charge of this. the real problem is not whether or not we increase the debt ceiling. the real problem with the national debt. andck obama and harry reid the republicans have been unable to do anything about that.

somebody needs to step up and help. host: you have endorsed the primary challengers in mississippi and kentucky. not in texas, where there is a primary challenge. why? guest: part of the reason is the structure. we're waiting to see if there is a credible challenge. much like ted cruz did. we will see if that happens. i think that john cornyn is not terribly popular with republicans in texas. he may or may not get a serious challenger. host: back to the other topic, which is these programs. have you personally joined the lawsuit? guest: yes. as an individual, as an employee of freedom works, as a representative of our 6 million members. maryland, elizabeth is on the phone. democrats line. with matt kibbe from freedom works. caller: good morning.

concerning the topic at hand, i can understand the concern over our privacy rights. what i do not understand -- what or freedomcan kibbe works give that this is not just a way to increase the mailing list? guest: we are not mailing on the subject. we are absolutely trying to engage as many citizens of possible in understanding what the faucet is about. also, understanding what they're -- their basic rights are. i think it is essential that citizens defend themselves against an encroaching government. this is not about building a list. this is not about partisan politics. this is about the bill of rights. host: next is robert from tennessee. republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i think that he is right on point. if you notice the democrats, they are all talking about what the constitution stands for. the ones that do not are messed up in the head. hillary clinton and barack obama ought to be tried for treason. i believe the republicans should go after them now. go after them hard. do everything they can. host: thank you for the call. guest: where we are today -- we were just talking about the fight within the gop caucus about the principles of the republican party. i am noticing that there is a trend in american politics away from the two political parties. a lot more people are registering as independent. a lot more people are skeptical of the party brands. it may not be republican versus democrat.

it may be all about powerful insiders and lobbyists representing unions. all of that is polluting against the rest of us. the outsiders, the american people. that is a tipping point. that is why we need to restore constitutional principles and why we need more transparency about what they are up to. we can hold them accountable. host: let me ask you process questions. the loss it will be filed this week. it states what? guest: it is a class action suit. the plaintiffs include rand paul as a citizen, freedomworks, our members. we are looking for injunctive relief from the federal government, specifically barack obama, and his representatives of the agencies. we want restoration of the fourth amendment. we want all of this metadata that has been collected and stored to be destroyed. host: now that it has been

filed, where does it go? could it go to the supreme court? guest: we have filed in virginia and we hope to get to the supreme court create it could. there are other lawsuits. the aclu has a lawsuit. there are several others. how those get handled, we will have to see how that emerges. host: is there any possibility of a cease and desist? or is the nsa ending the program? guest: members who authored the patriot act -- there's a lot of concern coming from congress. that is an important vote had a broad bipartisan support. enough to pass in the house. i think that congress should act. i wish they would do their job. making this lawsuit unnecessary. host: any reauthorization on the

patriot act were on this program coming up this spring or summer? guest: i do not think so. that is up to the house to see if they will do that. host: do you think democrats will join you? guest: i hope they do. they have spoken out. i think it is tougher for democrats to join us because of the partisan nature of washington. it would be the right thing to do. is theatt kibbe president and ceo of freedomworks thank you for being with us. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to this issue. if you are a convicted felon and you have done your time, should you be able to vote? myrna perez will be joining us. and later, our roundtable on the u.s. drone program. american book tv and history tv, our local content

vehicles, on the road to macon, georgia. at 5:00 on c-span three, we will show you among other items, the historic city house. here is a preview. >> we are on the fifth level of hay house, in the attic. we are standing at the entrance to the cistern. this is an 8000 gallon capacity receptacle which has water both from the roof above us and gutters, but also particularly, from the spring house that was up the hill. water was piped down and up. through pipes in the house to the cistern. it was kept for storage. in turn, it was piped down as cold water into the bathrooms and kitchen areas. also pumped down to the furnace, where it would be heated and the

then hiked through separate types. they used those facilities to have hot and cold running water. 19th-centurymon in houses of modest scale. surviving one of this size engaged in the upper floors or roof of a house is a little more rare. it is something that occurred with large-scale buildings. it also is a rare survival because of the pump that i'm standing next to. it has original caregiving fairly intact. to have hot and cold running water and in the kitchen scullery, in-house at georgia, it was very rare. host: we hope you'll tune in this weekend as we had to macon,

georgia. you can catch all of our programming at c-span.org. our look at macon, georgia this weekend on book tv and american history tv. mining us from new york is perrez, who is the deputy director of the brennan center for justice. felons whoing about have served their time and whether they should have the ability to vote in elections. this is what eric was to last week. [video clip] state leaders and elected officials across the country to pass clear and consistent reforms to restore the voting rights of all who have served their terms in prison or jail and we did their parole or probation and paid their fines. [applause]

i call upon experts and legislators to stand together in overturning an unfortunate and out dated status quo. people,pon the american who overwhelmingly oppose felony disenfranchisement to join us. bring about the end of misguided policies that unjustly restrict the most basic rights of american citizenship. those who have already shown leadership in raising awareness to help to address this issue. later today, we will hear from rand paul. he will lead us on this matter. he has vocal support for voting rights for former inmates. it shows that this issue need not break down along partisan lines. support -- bipartisan support will be critical moving forward. we need to do even more.

we can make sure that these positive changes are expanded upon. and that these changes are made permanent. host: the attorney general last tuesday. time magazine is that with this piece, cowritten by michael shear. obama's legacy project. this is part of his effort area explain specifically what you think the administration wants to see happen. thet: we are hoping that administration will be using its role and the influence that it has to encourage states to revisit their policies of disenfranchising persons with criminal convictions. i think it will be surprising for most americans to learn that there are more than 4 million americans living and working in our communities who cannot vote because of a criminal conviction in the past. host: there have been some bipartisan efforts. we heard from rand paul and the former governor of virginia. they're putting forth a plan

that would do what? power of hisd the office to provide clemency for those certain people who have had -- committed certain crimes and had enough time since their sentence. it is important to remember that he had a prosecuting background. he comes from a position where it is not good for public safety reasons to have people not equally integrated. one thing that i have learned in doing this work is that many people in the law enforcement profession recognized that if we want people who are returning our communities to successfully reintegrate, we need to give them a stake in our society. that means giving them rights and responsibilities. that includes the right to vote. host: the u.s. attorney general in the last two years of the bush administration has an op ed this weekend in the wall street journal.

it is titled what holder is not saying about letting felons vote. he makes this point in the first section of the 14th amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection to residents of all states. the second section says that states denied the rights of any male citizen over the age of 21 and will lose elector's for president and vice president. can you explain? interpretedhas been as allowing states to make determinations about what their eligibility requirements are criminal people with convictions. prosecution precludes those laws which are going to be found discriminatory on the basis of race. it is important when we revisit these lost to remember that many of these laws were created with

a racist background. many of them resulted just at the time where our country was in franchising former slaves. that can be traced back through a lineage that comes from some of our most shameful past. a convicted are felon and you served 8-10 years for your crime in your 20's or 30's. you go back into the workplace and start to raise a family and become a citizen, you are not allowed to vote? guest: it depends on your state. that is one of the problems. we have a patchwork across the country. in some states, you never lose the right to vote. you can even vote in prison. then you have some states like kentucky and florida and iowa, where it does not matter how long ago the crime was, it does not matter what it was or how old you were when you did it -- if you have a felony, you do not get your right to vote back unless the government part into you.

most states are somewhere in between. this patchwork creates a lot of problems for election administrators. sometimes they are very confusing. for example, i work in new york. probationers are allowed to vote, but parolees are not. that causes confusion among people who are affected and among election of -- administrators. they are not criminal justice professionals. they're trying to administer elections. and you do not have clear rules about who can vote, you have people unnecessarily and improperly disenfranchised. host: why? why is it so restrictive in florida? guest: the constitution has set that out. the important part is that the attorney general is asking us to revisit these policies. a number of states, not only are revisiting them, but go even further than what the attorney

general asked for. the vast majority of states already either do with the attorney general called for or do even better. our historical trend is the one of the restrictions on the right to vote. it makes good public policy. if we want our democracy to be robust and we want people participating -- if we want people who have spent some time in prison to successfully reintegrate, we want to give them the tools that they need to do so. we want to give them the opportunity to demonstrate to their family that they can be role models and that they can take responsibility for their actions. they care about their community and their country. very few people can think of better ways than to do that by voting. is one of the ways that we demonstrate that we care how our country is doing or the direction that we're going. it allows people to have a stake and allows them to have a voice. that makes them more invested. perez is joining us

from new york. she is a graduate of columbia law school. the fact that you have the president and rand paul on the same page on this issue tells you what? guest: it is very exciting. one thing to note is that this bipartisanship is not new. rick santorum suggested that our laws are restricting people with criminal convictions and there are two strict. governor bush signed texas law that moved texas closer to the mainframe. a lot of people recognize the idea that there is very little public policy that serves to prevent people from living and working in our community. people can come from a phase based background and recognize the outsider. they can come from an interest in public safety. they look at the data that suggest that if a person is more likely to vote, they're less

likely to recidivate. you can look from a perspective of a robust economy. if we want everyone to participate, they should participate. that is enjoying a lot of bipartisan support. rand paul is just one very public manifestation of that. -- this hasyed enjoyed a lot of bipartisan support for a number of years. host: why was the right to vote taken away from felons in the first place? what reasoning are we attempting to verse? guest: there is very well-documented history of these lost. many of the laws disenfranchising people with criminal convictions occurred between 1865 and 18 -- 1900. right as the country was in franchising as a formal matter. we have seen it in the place of laws which were formerly disenfranchising people. they are coming up and taking their place.

there are some laws that can trace their lineage back to shameful times. i know that disenfranchisement law in new york originated in the same constitutional convention in which they decided to expressly put a property requirement in order to let african-american men bow. if you look back at each history, it will be different. the vast majority of states come from a state law -- from a time when people were trying to figure out a way to get around restrictions put on the reconstruction amendments. host: james makes this point. you can join in on the conversation on facebook. he says that this has been used to destroy the black family and we should take measures to right that wrong. guest: certainly the problem of mass incarceration contribute to this. as we go and further incarcerate

a greater percentage of the population, the natural aftermath will have a greater number of people who cannot vote. it is for this reason that we need to make sure that when someone is in the community, they have the tools that they need to successfully reenter. ast: it is a fact today -- percentage of the population, a vast majority of those are african-american. guest: that is right. a lot of the people disenfranchised are people of color. it will vary from state to state. we can expect that if the current rates continue, three out of 10 of the next generation will lose their right to vote at some point. host: a caller joining us from springfield, illinois. thank you for waiting. caller: i worked in corrections 20 years ago. i worked there for 3.5 years. the guys were not prisoners to me, they were workers.

so many of them are locked up for nonviolent crimes. i find it appalling that they would have to explain their future to their children. i cannot vote and i cannot vote because i had a joint in my pocket. now i am considered a felon and the bad guy. we're criminalizing this. how will this work in the future? i have a real problem with this. host: thank you. guest: i think the really interesting point was raised. we expect our children to be taught how to vote. we expect parents to take them to the polls. we expect them to instill upon them civic duties and the importance of the understanding of voting. when you have entire communities where the men or the parents are unable to vote because of convictions in their past, you will have children who grow up not having the tools and expectation of voting. continue our civic

education and to make sure that the next generation of americans the leaves and the importance of voting. we need to give their parents the opportunity to go. host: from another viewer, has the brennan center conducted any data showing that the banning is an incentive not to do a crime? this viewer says i think not. guest: we certainly have not undertaken any sort of study. i have not seen any studies to that effect. one thing that we have gotten as a lot of support from one force that that says that if you want people to successfully reintegrate, they need to be given the opportunity to do so. voting is a very prosocial acts. you say i care about my community and i understand that there are rules of the game. i understand the importance of delayed gratification. i understand that i express myself in a certain way. that kind of prosocial behavior is the kind of behavior that we want.

we won americans leaving prison to half that. it is for that reason that we need to think critically of those laws that prevent people from being able to cast their ballot and being able to vote. host: one of those laws is three strikes and you're out. has that done a disservice to american criminal justice system? guest: the thing that i think is important to remember about the issue of post-incarceration disenfranchisement is that one does not have to come down on a particular viewpoint with respect to whether to work crime -- whether or not we are hard or soft on crime. when you are out of prison and living and working on -- among the rest of us, you should be will to vote. that does not have to disturb whatever criminal justice discrimination was about how long you need to be in prison. the system has already made the call that you will be living and working among the rest of us. we do not have to get into

whether or not the sentences are too strong or whether or not they have appropriately criminalized crimes. certainly there is a lot of discussion about that. this particular position and can rise above that. it can be one of democracy and participation. host: a lot of you weighing in. it you can join us on twitter. taxpayers should be allowed to vote. let's hear more of your comments in a few moments. we will listen to robert from kentucky. republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: we are fine. go ahead. caller: i do not understand -- she said that republicans are for this idea. that is the first time i have heard that. this is definitely one of those weird far left wacko ideas. if you follow the laws of the

country, you get the opportunity to vote. i do not know a lot about republicans sitting in jail. this is definitely some kind of scheme to get more voters from the left. being aif i stopped conservative and joined the democratic party, then maybe i could marry my dog? out and brutally murder someone answer my time. then get out and have the right to vote. it makes no sense whatsoever. guest: there are a number of states that would disagree with you. there are only three states in the country that permanently disenfranchise someone with a past capital conviction. the vast majority of states have a policy of either letting some people votes after a certain time or depending on what the

crime is, will well other people to vote. these really strict restrictions or someone is permanently disenfranchised is only in a small minority of our states. there is a lot of law enforcement that suggests that it is going to be better for public safety and better for our democracy if we have people who are already living and working tothe community who are able participate. again, i would like to mention that the position that we take is one that if you have people living and working in a community, there is not a lot of sense in disenfranchising them. they are already expected to contribute in a lot of ways. they are already contributing a lot of ways. if we want them to be good role models, we need to give them the opportunity to show the importance of participation. host: kevin has this point. the ban should stay in place for those convicted of crimes against society. confessed terrorist acts, etc.

would your plan vary depending on the crime you're convicted of? or if you've paid your time, would you have the right to vote no matter what? do targete states certain crimes for disenfranchisement and let other people be able to vote after serving time or sentence. easier for is election administrators and the public and for law enforcement to be able to vote once the criminal justice system has made the determination that you're safe to live and work among us. that is where you get the most amount of benefit and terms of making our democracy more participatory. that is rated the benefits of making sure that participation is engendered upon the next generation. that is how you make it more easy for administrators because they do not have to become in all justice professionals to

figure out if this disenfranchisement and conviction is right. host: for more information, go to brennancenter.org. she is the director there. our next call is from oregon. caller: good morning. i listen to your show a lot. i have called and wants. the subject has gotten my attention. this is no ago, excuse for the law. you can break the law and not even know you're breaking the law. i was convicted of a felony. i shot what i thought was a deer. it turned out to be a goat. it did not matter. they did not care. that was 33 years ago. the first event i got in five years. i lost my right to hunt, votes, be a citizen. i am to the point that i cannot feed my house.

any piece of paper i fill out, they ask if i am a felon. so, a personor like me, having a first offense and that is all that is on my record -- you should get the right to vote back. i should be able to have a gun back so i can go hunting. host: to be clear, you shot a goat and you are sentenced to five years in prison? caller: yes i got five years in prison. i got tricked. i felt bad about it. they said we will give you probation if you plead guilty. it was $250. that made it a felony. when you get to court, the justices -- the judge does not have to go with the recommendation of the district attorney or anyone else. even the judge does not have to go along. host: that has to be -- i have

never heard of anyone sentenced to five years. caller: i was. i'm right here in oregon. when i was in prison, i quickly discovered that the african-americans all caps yet it. most of them are thugs. there are some nice people. most of them are thugs. there is nothing for them. when they get out, they spend their whole lives turn to make up for that. host: thank you for the call. guest: that is important point. people need to be given of the right kind of tools to be a will to succeed. voting is one of those tools. if the phils responsibilities. it is a way of demonstrating a tear by her country. when one is deprived of that opportunity to contribute, it will disrupt their ability to successfully reenter. that is not good for anyone.

host: april has this point. if only taxpayers vote, you need to redefine taxpayer. for example, everyone plays -- pays sales tax or property tax. from sarasota, florida, john is on the line. go ahead. caller: good morning. crimes and penalties, such as not allowing child musters -- when they get out, to live or work near a day care center. would not be able to be near a women's center. they might not look too favorably on a bank robber living near a bank. if you cannot do the time, do not commit the crime.

you went out and committed a crime, you pay the price. if the prices you cannot vote, then that is the penalty. so be it. you cannot do the crime -- time, do not commit the crime. take care. host: thank you for the call. meanwhile, george has this tweet. someone serves their time, pays their fine, they should have rights restored. guest: i think that is right. there are a number of americans that think that it does not make sense when someone has served their time to be considered with a stigma of not being able to participate. there are a number of reasons why that is bound for the policy. we have talked about that all morning. what is important for folks to consider is that if we want people to be law-abiding, and we want people to be following our norms of the country. voting is one of those important

norms. we expect americans to vote. we expect our citizens to be will to demonstrate that they care about their country in this way. if we want people returning to our communities from prison to be able to have a stake and be successful, we need to instill upon them not only the responsibility to vote, but the right to vote. host: this is from stand. he says is the brennan center in favor of people having to show their id before voting? nuancede have a very position with respect to photo identification laws. state laws defer. some are more restrictive than others. some state laws make it very havecult for people to equal access to the ballot box. in this matter, the issue of a person with a criminal conviction in the past does not come into play. host: to underscore the point, this is a states rights issue, correct? guest: i'm sorry, what is a

states rights issue? host: state-by-state -- guest: states can determine, that is correct. attorney general holder knows that this is unconstitutional. bycontinues this attack asking states to change the locks. let's go to florida, independent line. say,r: i just wanted to then i will get off to hear your response, the grand jury clause of the fifth amendment does not apply to the states. in 1889 -- host: thank you for the call. did you want to respond? guest: no. i think what we're talking about here is what states laws are. attorney general holder was asking states to revisit their

laws, such that people with criminal convictions in the past are given greater opportunity to participate. host: craig hill says that the loss of voting rights as part of the punishment. too bad, that is the way it is. guest: that is actually not true the majority of states. there are only three states that permanently disenfranchise a person who has committed a criminal conviction. most of the states afford some opportunity for some people to participate. notwithstanding a criminal conviction in the past. host: next call is from montana. good morning. caller: how are you guys? we have lost a lot of good miners appear because of felony convictions. they had dynamite and high explosives. if the dynamite and firearms -- will you restore those firearms and dynamite access to these fellows?

i will listen to your accident -- answer. guest: that is not an issue i have studied. it is not an issue that derives from attorney general holder's speech. he was focusing on the issue of the voting rights and certainly we could have a national conversation about the other aspects. i think that there is a growing amount of momentum for the idea of restoring voting rights. there is growing bipartisan support. host: this is a nuanced question from a voter. the constitution says that not guilty shall be imprisoned? guest: i would have to go back and look at the historical record for that. host: pennsylvania, republican line. good morning. caller: the last guy took my question. good show, good topic. again, where are we going to stop?

i do believe that there are degrees of felons. again, we are looking at -- a felon cannot own a firearm. 2014, who is going to say that in 2024, we can let the guys have firearms? ist i think we should do teach that crimes have repercussions. sometimes actions have long-term effects. i think that would go a long way in promoting civil responsibility. good show and keep up the good work. host: thank you. did you want to respond? guest: there's certainly a lot to be said about the importance

of increasing civic education. we certainly could have a national conversation about what other collateral consequences are attached to losing a criminal conviction. what i think is important to focus on is that the issue of voting is a fundamental right. it is not only a fundamental right, it is something that we have printed eight on -- 50 good data on and allows -- pretty good data on. the criminal justice system can make the determination that it will make about who can be living and working among us. once it makes the determination, is to all of our benefit to make sure that we give everybody the opportunity to participate. that way they can be teaching their children the importance of voting. they can have a stake and they can be fully invested in our country. it is more likely to make them law-abiding and more likely to make them upstanding citizens that we all should aspire to be. host: we welcome our listeners

on the radio. we're heard nationwide on channel 120. perez withs myrna the brennan center for justice. the election assistance commission is a federal agency that provides support to local election administrators and state election administrators, and order to be able to better serve the american public during election seasons. host: what is the status of your nomination? guest: i cannot answer questions about that. that is a matter of public record. there was a hearing last week with respect to whether or not they would vote on the commissioners and a quorum was not had. there needs to be further discussion. host: debbie is joining us from alabama. good morning.

caller: yes, good morning. to --l is in reference the color from kentucky -- the caller from kentucky made a that the vastsaid majority of felons are democrats. how could he say that? there are thugs or whatever. but there are conservatives just as well. think the point that partisan politics should not be a part of this discussion is well taken. it is about democracy. it is about the right to vote. it is about being good role models for children. ms. about moving the country forward and away that we have americans participating in our electoral system.

cynical views about partisanship and trying to guess what kinds of politics people have and how they will be affected is really immaterial and unhelpful to the conversation. host: i will make the premise based on this tweet -- child molesters cannot live near schools. what is the difference between that and somebody convicted of a crime? you noted a handful of states are not able to vote. i can i'm not sure exactly answer the question. some states do limit the restoration of rights to people depending on the crime committed. i think, or the premise of the question has to go with what are we going to do with people after the criminal justice system have already made the determination that they are safe to be living and working among sus? -- amongst us?

once they have made that determination, there are not good policy reasons for not letting them vote. people can debate until the cows come home who should spend more time in prison and whether they should be harsher or softer. whether or not we appropriately rehabilitate. those are important questions to discuss. that is not really what this conversation is about. this conversation is about when someone is returning to our community and we want them to be successful. we want them to be invested. we want them to ban invested so that they will be successful and they will not be burdens on taxpayers and they will be good role models. what can we do to help them? data suggests that they law enforcement officials believe that voting is an important way of doing that. host: one of our viewers makes this point. this concern over felons voting is nothing more than developing another voting block for democrats. let's hear from you. again, and earlier caller

raised this question. i do not know that anyone knows who or how people will vote when they return from prison. it is really immaterial. the issue is whether or not we want americans participating in our system. if we want americans who are living and working in our communities to be successful, we need to give them the right to vote. host: our last caller is from youngstown on the republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think a lotive, of republicans are not recognizing the fact that they are making everything a felony. driving under the influence is a felony in new york. i am a felon now for having stolen my car. that if youa law

have a magazine with eight bullets -- racial epitaph, these are all felonies. my neighbor has a grudge. a burger purchased out-of-state is a felony. the term felony always referred to people with armed robberies and murders. it is now becoming normal behavior. host: thank you very much for the call. myrna? host: the -- guest: the amount of overt commercialization is contributing. it is an increase in numbers that makes it really difficult to justify having so many americans not being able to vote. about 4.4 million americans living and working in our communities who cannot vote because of criminal convictions and past.

if they live together, that would be their second or third largest city. good is not a justification for keeping this number of americans from being able to participate in especially when we already have so few people participating. host: bottom line, where does this is you go next? the states will be revisiting their policies, hopefully. we will have the opportunities to have the conversations that they need to revisit what they are currently doing. hopefully people are affected, hopefully people who can tell their own stories and state legislators will visit what it is that the state does, and come up with a policy that makes our democracy more free, fair, and acceptable. perez, thank you for

being with us on c-span. guest: thank you for having me. host: our sunday roundtable discussing another issue, we will get two different perspectives. c-spanogram is heard on radio, and on c-span radio you can listen to the other sunday shows beginning at noon eastern. of theeeping track guests and the topics. republicannclude the debt ceiling vote, or policy issues, and the sochi winter games. as you mentioned, you can here -- you canasting the hear rebroadcasts of the issues on c-span radio.

eastern, we have governor mccoury, mayor garcetti, and actor kevin spacey. at 2:00 p.m. it is fox news sunday, with republican senator jh lee, and congressman avier. and then, john mccain, former chairman of the white house council of economic advisers. at four clock p.m. it is face the nation, the president of the heritage foundation, and pat mccory. these are brought to the public service by the networks and c-span. atrebroadcast the show's and on the hour after

that. you can listen to the mall and c-span radio here in the washington dc area. you can download our free app for your smart phone, or listen online at c-span.org. >> here they are coming in closing in on me, i'm still thinking a debate. when i went through survivors chool, the people who capture you are the least train pows, so the best time to escape is right then. i thought that these were rookies, so i pulled out my weapon, and said get away, get back. then i fired a round of that tracer over their head. they did not flinch.

they raised their rifles, and pulled out told -- a comic-- pulled out capturingshowed them an american pilot. nos one guy said surrender, die, hands up. >> so here i am facing about nine long guns, on i decided that is the best advice i was going to get that day. >> former air force pilot and on c-span's q1 day. q&a. the roome put you in

at meetings, conferences, and offer complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a a look service to private industry. we are created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago, and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch as an, like us on facebook, i follow us on twitter. washington journal continues. host: our focus, drones trikes on american terrorist suspect overseas. chuck blanchard, senioristopher anders, legislative counsel to the marketable do you -- aclu. itt is the whole essay when comes to the strikes against americans who are overseas? is a question goes

to the very heart of who we are as an american people, because what we have had over the past several years is a program that has resulted in more than 30 600 people being killed away from traditional battlefields. we had four that were united states citizens, that attorney general eric holder has acknowledged were killed without any due process, or with anything people would expect under the constitution. we are on the verge of a fifth united states citizen that could and up being killed through this program. the reports last week were that department had been reviewing since last fall and proposal to put another united states citizen on the list of

targets. we do not know what country, just outside of the united states. this person, no jury trial, no order permitting court, would be put onto this target killing list based on the say so of the president. host: you have a different point of view? guest: this was an issue of policy that was pretty clear, and that was that we are at war with al qaeda and its associated forces. that war has no geographical limitations, it is not limited to pakistan, it is not limited to pakistan -- afghanistan, it is worldwide. we have the right under it or national law and domestic u.s. al qaeda and its associated forces wherever they are. as a matter of prudence, we are limited in what we do. we only go after folks that are operational leaders, or folks

that are doing terrorist strikes against the united states, that have imminent threat against the united states. we will use a strike as opposed to a capture wind a capture is not practical. they are only in areas where the country is a old -- unable or unwilling to take care of the problem itself. host: the president last year on this issue -- the record, i do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any u.s. citizen with a drone, or a with a shotgun without due process. nor should any president deployed armed drones over u.s. soil. but when a u.s. citizen goes abroad, to wage war against america, and is actively plotting to kill u.s. citizens,

and we needed the united states -- and when neither the united states, or their partners are able to stop them before they carry out the plot, their citizenship should know more protect them in a craft should protect it from a swat team. coveredwho he was continuously trying to kill people. he helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two u.s. bound cargo planes. bombere christmas day iraqis yemen, the approved his mission, how can to take a video after the attack, and helped them to blow up a

plane over u.s. soil. i would have detained and if we captured him before he carried out a plot, but we could not. and as president, i would have derlict in my duties. host: your response? > guest: this president, like every other leader of every other country has not just a right but an obligation to protect the country against imminent attack. this president does have the authority, whether it is a citizen or not, if there is a concrete, specific threat, the only way can be stopped would be lethal force that could be used. what we have here is a debate that has been going on within

the government for months as to whether someone should be on the list or not on the list. that undermines the entire --uirement of evidence eminence. what is imminent mean? >> he said it means about to happen. that is what everyone in the world would say. but this administration did not , theyans about to happen developed this term called elongation imminence. how can you have this? it is either about to happen, or not. just like a police officer here at home has the right to shoot somebody to stop them as a last resort if that person is going

to cause harm to somebody else, and there's no other way to stop that person, internationally united states can do the same thing. the police officers do not have the right to sit around deciding for months and months whether they're going to go out and execute somebody with no order or anything. that is essentially what is happening here. the other part of this is that the president, last year in his speech, talked about rules, and talked about rules that he was developing and a commitment to transparency. there's very little transparency, we would agree on that. very little transparency on the rules on whether or not we can kill somebody or not on the battlefield even from members or conference -- members of congress. these rules seem to be waived and broken at will. earlier in thes

march of 2013, senator rand paul held the filibuster on this issue, and senator paul began i'm making a reference to the drones being used on american soil. something that the president does not say happened. the president if you can kill americans on american soil commit should have been an easy answer. it is an easy question. it should have been a resounding, and unequivocal no. the president's response, we have not killed anyone yet. we're supposed to be comforted by that. he says we are not killed anyone yet. he goes on to say, we have no intention of killing americans, but i might. is that enough? are we satisfied by that? are we so complacent with our rights that we will allow a president to say he might kill

that he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit? some would say he would never do this. many people give the president consideration, say he is a good man. i'm not arguing that he is not. host: your response to senator rand paul? guest: the concept that we would do a drone strike on a u.s. citizen is really far-fetched within this administration's policy. if a group of terrorists wanted to take over a mall, and lethal force would be used on citizens, in that circumstance we would need to protect life. lethal force would not take a court order, on u.s. soil.

we again, the policy is, would only use drone strikes in highlights --r allies or our cells are unable to take care of the problem. chuck blanchard is an attorney here in washington dc coffee served as the security director in arizona back in 2003, and the former general counsel to the u.s. army. in.s bring our viewers york.om new good morning. caller: thank you. my question is, how can anyone make a serious argument for targeting americans when the

scientific evidence now shows that the towers were brought out a controlled demolition? that is not the topic of the conversation. thank you for your call. we will not go to a republican line. caller: this president has done so few right things. he has done no right things. the only right thing he seems to be able to do is to kill our enemies. leave the guy alone. let him kill these people that are trying to kill us. guest: what we're talking about here is this president, and in the future resident acting as judge, jury, and executioner with a u.s. citizen involved. -- there have been lots of threats that we have

gone through successfully. we have never had a president that ordered the ailing of a u.s. citizen -- killing of a u.s. citizen away from the battlefield. there were three other american citizens that were killed by drones drakes who were not targeted, but who were killed alongside other people. we now have four. discussing is a possible fifth american to be added to that list. that goes to the very heart of who we are as people. are justpeople that going to sit around, have a government that's that surrounds -- that sits around and decide who lives and who dies? in a program done by the president was keeping this away from the courts, and they have a ducted over dover

get of disclosing the basis for these decisions. they are hiding this from congress. cia officials, refused to show up for a secret hearing run by the chairman of the senate armed services committee to answer basic questions. they continued to hide legal program evenhis from the intelligence communities. we do not know what is taking place here, and the very basis and dueule of law, process is that people have a right to know what the rules are, certainly american citizens do. those rules are being hidden from all of us. host: do they have the right to due process? guest: they do if they are u.s.

citizens. i would dispute the concept that these strikes are occurring outside of the battlefield. under international law there is no geographical limit to the battle that we are fighting. if you adopt a position that we are unable to strike, you're the factur position on that uruguay for the strike to hit us before we can respond. that is an appropriate way to protect u.s. citizens. all three branches of government recognize that we have a global war against the qaeda and its affiliates across the road, not just in afghanistan, not just in iraq, but worldwide. i would agree, that it would be a lot easier to have this debate forward -- if we had more chance. the butler happening. caller: thank you for having

me. we have a government that no lager gart -- no longer regards the constitution as a living document. no longer regards the separation of powers as important to the people. we have seen the targeting by irs, the cover-up and the scandals around benghazi, and how this president has circumvented the powers of congress, and now he wants the authority and power to kill americans on our own soil? i do not trust the government, i do not think so. -- a we will get a result response on the lack of trust. guest: it would be easier we were more transparent. if the american people had a better idea of what is going on, they can make a better judgment

whether it is important or not. i think it also would be helpful if people understood what was really going on in detail. we could respond to some of the accusationscisms in of collateral damage, and that would help a great deal. a series of speeches by general counsel, including that -- the attorney general, i hope that will go further. caller: good morning i would like to sponsor mr. anders -- respond to mr. anders. onlyonstitution defines one crime as treason, and the punishment for that crime is death. guest: certainly, treason is a

crimerime. and it is a that is really prosecuted -- ra cuted.rose if the united states believes that this person has not been identified yet, there are some murmurs that he is in pakistan, but if the united states believes that this person is a traitor, or has committed treason, those are crimes that can be urged in federal court -- charged in federal court. there can be a grand jury indictment on whether that noton is in u.s. custody or u.s. custody. that has not happened, and has not happened with the other united states citizens that were killed including a 15-year-old boy that was not charged with anything. to who it is we

are as a people. we are a people that pride ourselves on following the rule of law. idea, igo back to this need pretty often with the administrative officials on this policy. when we ask for what the rules are, we are mostly referred to sheet that isact a handful of aircraft that in general terms layout what the standard is for killing somebody , whether a united states citizen or not, away from the battlefield. there are other guard about -- documents that the government is using. even from members of congress. we, as the american people, has a right to know what the

rules are, especially when those rules can result in united states citizens being killed without a judge, jury, based on the say so of the president. if you'ret different living in the streets of harris or london versus power -- pakistan? law orunder both policy. even if you're a not a citizen living in paris, the all see that we would work with local law enforcement to capture them. in the countries able and willing to take it care of it on their own, they let them take care of it. if capture is possible, capture has to be used. host: our democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning.

comments, the gentleman from arizona stated that his laying out of how the target were so deserving and , ending you touched on this 15-year-old boy who was killed in the drone strike. i am wondering if this is an example of the elongated imminence. i would like the gentleman to address this, because he gave a very passionate speech about how active these individuals were at that moment on the battlefield. i would like to hear him address how the murder of a teen-year-old, who was not engage in terrorist activity corresponds to his argument? guest: the 15-year-old son was not in the -- was not the target

of an attack. whens unfortunately killed he was in the vicinity of another. he was not targeted, it was a noncombatant death. ation ad be a viol policy to actually target them. --t: on twitter let's go to our republican line. caller: i think my question had onn somewhat covered, transparency, it is not the press isause passionate at their job. the president is allowed to do this because the press do not

press it as they would have. you only need to look at the new andk -- "the new york times" their coverage of abu ghraib. has granted his authority based on the fact that he knows he will not be called on it in thed press. transparency does not fix all the problems, but we don't know what the problems are few do not have transparency. it is amazing to see. i sat in a hearing for the nomination of the the general counsel to the cia in december.

she's a former justice official that writes these legal opinions on who can be killed under this targeted killing program. she was asked by senator feinstein whether she would turn over and allow the intelligence committee of the senate to see and read the legal opinions of the targeted killing program? a cia directorp nomination last year, several opinions are staying -- still being hidden from the committee. irony have rule of law, separation of powers, and even the legal opinions cannot be itself a committee that operates in secret, but still

has some oversight over the cia and over this program, when those opinions are being hidden from members of congress? guest: i want to take the different view. if an american was responsible for that, and if the u.s. do not go after that american on foreign soil, the question would have been why not? guest: this is really key. ,he united states has a right if someone is about to attack them, and there's no other way to stop them then legal force -- hal force, you can go back to the federalist papers. the president has a right and an obligation to use the military to stop an imminent attack on the united states. not anf the military is

option, and a drone strike is, what is the difference? guest: that is something that is appropriate. what we have here, is four months and months, the justice , sittingt, on its own around debating whether or not a united states citizen should be killed. it almost goes to the question of how can something be imminent if or months you can sit around debating? host: is that the case? things, youb -- two need to have transparency, and how we know what we know, how are intelligence techniques are to find out what we have can be destroyed if we are to transparent -- too transparent. something set to run in secret, or else we will not have the same level of information we have.

the concept of imminence is a little different in places like yemen, where we may not know attack and when and where it will occur, but we know that there is active landing. tive planning. we know the individuals where thebut we know strike will be. folks that are actively plotting right now, and are part of the plots, this is an effort to do with the federalist papers talked about the obligation to talk -- protech uslife -- p rotect us live. host: where does the technology come from? guest: it is not very

sophisticated technology. it is a glider with a swiss snowmobile into the -- engine. and as hellfire missiles, which are old antitank weapons because they have a limited area of collateral damage. the main technology is our ability to communicate with satellites worldwide. the technology itself is not that sophisticated. host: a republican line, good morning. caller: i was so happy you took my call. i would like to say that i think everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room. we prevent this authority from getting out of hand with drone strikes on american citizens anywhere? guest: that is a good question,

because right now our entire system of government is based on checks and balances. ford tampa, with the decision to go to war, commerce make that decision, and then the president carries it out. we have oversight over presidential decisions, traditionally by two bridges of branches of- government. targeted killing, the courts have been cut out by an administration who has not just rejected the substance of who running the investigations and the compensation for victims, but also who has objected and fought every step of the way for any kind of disclosure.

then we of course have congress, which sometimes does not do a very good job anyway of oversight in the national security area, but here they have really tried over the past to deal with an administration who was played hide the ball. when you have the courts unable to find out what the rules are, you cannot have oversight, you cannot have the rule of law. how do we know whether the president is doing what he is saying he is doing when we do not have the rules to hold them to that? ont: whenever viewers saying twitter -- guest: absolutely not. --even chris would

a citizen if we knew was in the taliban, that would not limit our ability to fight the community. ,he battle here is more global in yemen, and pakistan, and somalia, we do not have these kind of controls. checks and balances that can be improved, but they are there. congress has the purse strings. they are briefed on every single strike when it occurs, who the target was, why they were targeted. host: they have supported the president on this. we heard from senator feinstein and republican leaders in the house from the intelligence committee. guest: others from the , haveigence committee made clear their concerns about

these programs, and have asked over and over again for more information. at this hearing back in december, there were senators from both parties who were clearly upset that they were not getting these basic legal opinions, that included senator collins from maine, who said that they can get legal opinions on the justice department on all types of topics, but in this area they are being hidden. they support the policy, and they are aware of a lot of details. they also taken steps to reaffirm the administration's view that we are fighting a global war against al qaeda and its associates that is not geographically limited. u.s. droneopic is strikes on american terrorist suspects overseas our guests are

richard anderson the aclu and chuck blanchard, currently a lawyer here in washington dc. illegal?ination guest: assassination under executive order are forbidden. you need to understand that in a killing youronment enemy is not an assassination. that would not apply here. not know the full details, but from what i understand, he was captured, so that his early would be a warm crime -- war crime, because he was shot when he was no longer a threat. that it was a

real attack on the united dates. it was an attack that needed a response to make sure it would not happen again. congress passed what is believed, and what lots of people who are in congress now who were behind writing it, who to giver it in 2001 president bush the authority to go into afghanistan and find the perpetrators of 9/11, they thought that they had drafted authorization. as chuck said, which is reflective of both president obama's and president bush boss administrations, they took a very broad view of what their

authority is. most american people think we are at war in afghanistan, but we have been using warlike ,owers far from the battlefield across several different continents.-- but to be out concern because statest only the united use its authority, but it's american citizens are being put at risk. the unitedns that states is getting into engagements that it is hard to get out of. the only public hearing so far on the drone program was a hearing in the senate judiciary committee last summer. one witness was a democracy activist from yemen, who came and talked about how the drug program in yemen is turning the

population from a population that looks to the united states odel to bee -- m followed, and is turning them against the united states and toward al qaeda. exact oppositee effect in that part of the world. the united states government is starting to realize that. there is evidence that there is paring back in the use of drone strikes, there's much more concerned that is being expressed. as these drone strikes become better known, there's more opposition in the countries where they are being used, and there's more of a backlash against the united states. you have this quick, easy fix that is no longer being seen as a quick and easy fix them and a great real problems for the united states down the road. aest: i realize this is

speculation question because we do not know, but we're getting some early information on the bush administration records as they were open up. what do you think we will learn about this time 10 to 15 years from now when the obama records open up? guest: you will see a surprising level of engagement by the lawyers. thee who came into administration with a very good reputation was part of these discussions, and publicly defended what is being done. that will be of interest. the care and thought that went into what we are doing. we have been talking about the legality, i think there is a prudence issue as well. particular, i have

some concern that are sources of intelligence am not been as great as they were in pakistan, and that may be an indication we have gone too far. host: this, from one of our viewers -- independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. if people were not getting killed left and right over so-called terrorism, it would be almost laughable. one of you guys mentioned terrorist training camps. every time i see that green need video of somebody climbing monkey bars, that is supposed to be a training camp? where they supposed to be? guest: do you know? concerns among many

, thisthese drone programs is another place where we have no clear answer from the president, over the past couple of years there have and beenhing that -- there has something that has been called a signature strike. the reports that the united states were using drones against people, not that they suspected the specifically were terrorists. identifying names, and knowing who these people are, but looking at patterns on the ground through surveillance drones, and then killing those people based on those patterns of behavior. some of those reports included things like seeing people with 18-40, young man of

carrying rifles, exercising together. in that part of the world, carrying a rifle is something that most people do, most people have weapons because they need them for protection. there were drone strikes being carried out that way. a lot of us were told, and there were some reporters that were told before the big speech last year by the president, that signature strikes were going to and. the air, that from seeing what people looked like they were doing, and then ,illing people based on that that practice was going to end. they seemed to have backed off, and no one seems to any confirmation on that. this goes to what this gentleman is calling about, of seeing grainy clips of people on monkey

bars. what does that really mean? you can go to almost any public park in the spring and see different exercise programs and things like that. you can see different parts of the world and see people carrying arms, because that is what they need to protect themselves in everyday life. level of to what evidence is needed before someone is killed. all of this is wrapped in secrecy, and so the caller does not have the ability to judge for himself whether this is a good idea, because we do not have the ability, the commoners -- members of congress do not, it is all about trusting the president and the bureaucrats around him. is there an irony in that

you have a president who ran on closing guantanamo date, ending the war in iraq, but he is supporting the use of drones on americans overseas to keep america safe? we go back to the impact it has on future terrorist. guest: he has a difficult job of being the commander-in-chief. it is a slippery slope. he is doing the best job he can to address a real threat to the united states. it is not a made-up threats. when they were bombing the trade center and the pentagon, we had train bombings sooner after. there has been a series of terrorist attacks about here and the united -- and europe. let's take this question head-on, we have had a lot of e-mails.

d answer whyl 9/11 happened, what is your response? dealers -- there is clearly great anger in the middle east warned u.s. policy by justnot just driven policy, but u.s. culture. how we deal with them, how we live our lives. growing fundamentalist that wasovement extremely effective. it happened because we have not fully recognized the threat, and did not act accordingly. realized1, we have that we are engaged in a true armed conflict with al qaeda and its associates. host: good morning, republican

line. caller: good morning. the title on your thing says it is a debate on a strike on american terrorism suspects. this goes to the fourth amendment, were you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers. secrets business about courts, secret this, secret that, and it is all to be trust me, how do you trust people who live out both sides of their mouth? who cannot manage a budget, to make life and death decisions? if they are not an american system -- citizen, that is one issue, but if they have that they are protected under the constitution to due process. if you had a hostage

situation here in the united states were someone was -- if there was a fear that the hostage would be killed. if there is a real threat to that hostage, you would not have to render a court on u.s. soil, a cyber good take them out -- sniper could take them out. that would go against to due process. on u.s. soil, if we are able to capture a member who is part of al qaeda, we have to go through due process. if we have the capability to do so, for which capture is not an option, and our choices are stop theke action to threat or have american lives be killed, under the due process cases that have come out of the hostage situation, this would

fit the criteria for due process. as to the trust issue, i understand that the publicans hate -- the republicans hate democratic the ministrations, and the democrats hate the public at administration, i am mostly involved in looking at this issue in both administrations. if this were a democratic issuel issue -- political , or republican elliptical issue -- political issue, you have those who are career civil servants. caller: good morning. are you there? host: yes. caller: the man did not answer the question about 9/11.

the best thing we can do to end all of this is to get all of our troops out of the oil countries like saudi arabia, which is very -- which is why it all happened, and if someone is a traitor, he needs to be taken out with a drone for safety. secondly, i wouldn't trust rand paul any further than i could throw him. he wants to be president so bad, he will say anything. let's not raise the minimum wage, let's raise a blip -- unemployment benefits. i would not trust them. i think one of the concerns that we have about this program is that we spend a lot of time -- we're both lawyers here, and a lot of people involved in this issue are lawyers, we spend a lot of time talking about the law -- but it

is a question of prudence. is this a wise policy? if you look at 9/11, as the caller just raised a concern about the united eighth -- united states's role in this part of the world. ed general retrir rge of theseha programs. in a big part of the world where the united states needs to win over friends. i spent a lot of time pushing back against the bush administration because of the guantanamo program. there were a lot of people concerned about that because engendered this kind of agent of the united states in the very places where the united states needed to win friends.

here we are repeating this all over again with the targeted killing program. we can talk about looking at focusing in on high-level all caps operatives -- al qaeda operatives. has killed over 3600 people, and there has never been 3600 high-level operatives. host: has this been verified? guest: the administration will not say, but there are several media organizations that look at these drone strikes, and with each one estimate the number. getting what he was from the administration, they match up with a couple of these media organizations. this is a program that

has been ratcheted back ready dramatically because of the prudence concerns. on the other hand, we need to remember that in 2001-2003 they were a very effective organization and engaged in active and successful success on both -- attacks on both europe and the united states. one consequence of those strikes that we have seen over the past few years is that the al qaeda decimated,largely and is much more ineffective. offshoots arehe less effective. i am convinced that a large number of otherwise successful terrorist operations did not occur because of these tracks -- the strikes.

the downside is what you're doing to the region, and whether they become more counterproductive than productive. host: clearly state what is your opinion, and biggest disagreement? thet: we agree on a lot of matters of transparency. i think it comes down to the due process question. analogy,ge situation different from where we are now, there is a month-long debate going on in the justice department lawyers a mile from this building. at the same time, there would be an opportunity or a court to get engaged and help make these decisions and figure out what the criteria are, but that is being denied. they just run a case to try to get a remedy for american

citizens who have been killed in this, and the administration is trying to oppose even that after the strike. -- caller.ead all or caller: i do not agree with the drone strikes because it violence the constitution. all americans have due process of law, and they're being denied that. i do not care if it is overseas, they are still entitled to due process, and they are denied that when they are convicted of being ill give this or that without any evidence. guest: if a court is a viable alternative, the constitution demands we use that. that is not an option here. our choices are there to allow

the person to act as part of the enemy to kill u.s. citizens, and we can take no action against ism, or second, our choice to take action. under the policies that we have right now, they have to be actively engaged in killing u.s. citizens, they have to be part of al qaeda, and capture cannot be an option. that are the circumstances circumvents due process, but to due process is not always have to be a court. why cannot -- guest: we use a court but this is been going on for 30 years. , theolitical appointees aclu brought a case on behalf of

his father month before he was killed. it said in court with the government getting that case and ending that case. if government lawyers consider out and debating this for months on end, why can we not have a court go in and make sure that things like the standard for the united states killing somebody being -- is being met? guest: the main thing is getting a core in five -- getting a court involved in what has traditionally been presidential activities. under the current constitution right now we do not have that. having if we are government career lawyers, government appointees in the justice department, not part of

the defense apartment or part of the uniformed military services making these decisions, why, not have a court making those decisions? guest: the statute creates ram framework, but it would judicial eyes were 28 extent we have never done before. host: thank you for being with us. will continue the conversation tomorrow morning as we do every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, tomorrow is president's day, and we will check in oy, the author of presidents and pop culture. ofwill also look at the role first ladies with robert watson. therrow evening, we have

political unification archives -- communication archives at the university of oklahoma. enjoy the rest of your weekend, and have a great week ahead eric [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> coming up today, "new makers," with privacy and civil liberties oversight board member david midian -- medine.