the teams that we have. , there are some accusations among pashtuns because he sided with dostum, considered to have war crimes -- to have committed a war crime atrocities. on his team, he managed to vastly increase his constituency. in the 2009 presidential elections, ashraf ghani managed of votes.around 3% this time, it is mainly because of dostum he has risen up. mainly because of dostum. nd dr. abdullah, as ambassador nuemann said, he has a lot of support among tajiks in the

northern and western part of afghanistan. but because he was very -- a the latee confidant of massoud, he is seen as a radical by a lot of pashtuns. though yesterday you had a campaign rally in kandahar. from all the candidates, he had the biggest turnout. which means that he has the biggest rally in kandahar. which is a bit surprising for everybody. to zalmai rassoul, he is considered a very weak person, not only him but the vice president he has.

his second vice president used to be a governor. it will help him to secure some votes of women. as entire team is seen as, we say in afghanistan, a just saying team. whatever karzai says. >> i just want to follow up on something general allen set. this is an excellent analysis. i went to tee up one issue. president karzai is still 70% popular in afghanistan. he is not 70% popular in washington, but he is 70% popular in afghanistan.

i'm trying to think through this question ron and i were focusing on. what are rassoul's real prospects? there is a certain undercurrent that if rassoul wins, it must mean something was fraudulent. i want to push back a little and ask you the following. isn't it possible that because afghans doi's guy, not mind that. he is a candidate of continuity and will not rock the boat too much. d, some might prefer stability. because he does not have the negatives of the other two, either dostum or a strong tajik association of dr. abdullah. ir all these reasons, and have seen some polls lately that put him closer to the front runners then you mentioned. he may actually be a viable candidate, even though much of the narrative suggests he could

not be. disagree with the question, but i want to put it to a point. what ise elections, equally important to the actual process is the perception of the public. people currently see him as a candidate, a team on the low margins. them being elevated to the level of dr. abdullah and ashraf ghani or even above them will raise serious questions. >> i would pause. that is very true of the educated elite and of kabul. is equally true across the south and east. it could be, i am not saying it is not. i think there will be questions. i would also point out that dr. abdullah and ashraf ghani are

making an effort to say that if dr. rassoul gets into the second round, it is automatically evidence of fraud. i think we as americans should not accept that which is a campaign ploy in advance. of note that not everyone is of this view. i was having breakfast with a a pretty liberal and educated audience. the were quite angry that election foundation had made a could notthat rassoul get in. there are divisions in views and then there are political agendas. >> i was going to come to that, actually.

there are some justifications if he gets to that position. ve a significant number of undecided voters. itany stage you could say was the undecided voters who finally decided to vote for zalmai rassoul. that is one issue. the other issue, to be honest, even now it is a huge frustration on the part of the afghan people. of certainty lack -- what is going to happen in their elections. we have expectations that there should not be fraud in the process should produce legitimate government. it will not be a serious question or concern among afghans. for the record, despite the fact

that we desire transparency and clean processes. elections have had a significant impact in the lack ife of average afghans. the business people have stopped investing in afghanistan because of these issues. they are not sure what is going to happen in the future. the uncertainty has caused a lot theoung people to flee country. saying afghanistan is not going to work. but we have a vibrant and huge community of young adults and civil society workers who are helping theged in process and ensuring that the process is clean and transparent. for example, one of the

colleagues my started last week was to prepare a resolution and get the signature of every single candidate. the mostution says -- common article is that if the independent international and national election monitoring organizations endorses the , i knowledge i will not challenge or dispute the outcome of the elections. politicaln's stability is very fragile. if any candidate disputes the result of the elections, it will obviously create problems. further instability. in general, what i would like to is, people in

afghanistan under there is huge instability. it is a country that lacks strong political institutions. the analogy i usually make is the country is a plane is being flown while it is being constructed. have strong political institutions. we do not have enough experience with regards to holding elections. the geography is extremely tough. security is extremely tough. the taliban and other insurgent toups will spare no efforts disrupt the elections. if we have a successful election that could reduce legitimacy it would be a huge blow to the taliban. they will show that a people of afghanistan said no to don and itse to go and vote --

would show that the people of afghanistan said no to them and chose to go vote. that is why they will do everything from attacking to cards tog fake voting undermine the legitimacy of the elections. >> turning to general allen for impressions about the candidates. nothave worked with most if all of them. also, your sense of security thenthe saturday vote and the new fighting season as the snows melt in afghanistan and the taliban return. >> the taliban, as we just heard, have a great stake in ge ofg to portray the ima insecurity right now and to shake the confidence of the population in terms of the future of afghanistan. first, with regard to the candidates, i have worked mostly rassoul.af ghani and

well, i alsodullah know sayyaf well. for me, the security is not just about the election on the fifth. security is important with respect to the transition from the karzai administration to the next administration. ensuring we have a secure for thatto provide political transition. the first time there will have been a peaceful transition from one elected leader in afghanistan to another. theeful is in the eyes of beholder. in the context of a constitutional process that is recognizable, this is important. months withng respect to a runoff and with respect to the time necessary to the the government after runoff, we have some big

political events >> right now, i think very clearly and correctly there is enormous uncertainty about the future of afghanistan. one of the reasons for that uncertainty has been that we have been unable to announce a specific commitment in terms of the pursed .14. ost 2014 period. the idea is creating an upward spiral of professional capability. it is been essential.

that would take the form of both in terms of the resources necessary for that commitment, people of course and the equipment and funding, but also the time. that ensures that the post tony 14 mission is resourced in terms the amount of time necessary to truly give the afghan security forces what they need. again, the key point is if we are going to have an election or the afghans are in the lead for security, we will surprise -- provide support and special operations to destabilize the taliban's ability to disrupt this. there will be disruption. there will be areas where the taliban seeks to create the

illusion of an unstable environment. forcesch of the security are well advised and tactically mobile and they will have a reach we have not seen before in an election. it will not be perfect area there will be substantial disruption of. as we have heard, there is great enthusiasm to get out and vote. instead been heartened of being compromised. we will have the election. we will have a potential runoff. we will have the formation of the government. the will occur between accomplishment of the mission and the establishment of the post tony 14 -- 2014 mission. this will be put into place

ultimately for an advisory. with those major political transitions, it is essential in the first year after the election is to provide as much support as we can to the afghans. in the resource base and not just in the longevity of the mission, but a clear western enunciation of support to the afghan government and the a in sf. f.ans in the absence of that clarity, we have seen a digging in strategy. people will not support investment. people are unwilling to commit to a peace process. it is not just a hedging strategy in the countryside, it is in the cities and regionally. clarity, this kind

of obvious and open enunciated commitment is really important right now to give the afghan citizenry and elite and the region the sense that the west is going to be there for some. of time. we learned three lessons from the end of the soviet era. produced a military that was pretty since effective. -- effective. the intent had been that the soviets would remain for some. of time heading the mushu dean. the first thing to go were the advisers. even when they went, the afghan forces still acquitted themselves relatively well until the soviet union completely collapsed.

that is when the resources and funded that were necessary when away. the is when we saw first collapse. we and so the civil war emerge. the chaos that emerged was the general departure of the west and the instability that we created. those were lessons from which we studied significantly and made recommendations to influence the outcome of the end of this year and the post 2014. that is the taliban and narrative, that they will be abandoned. we will provide for the development of the security forces. we will accomplish that mission. right now, in the final throes

will fly inion, it the face of the taliban and .arrative which is abandonment as long as we are able to maintain the equilibrium of those five areas, i think we can provide the amount of time necessary and the stability necessary for that first peaceful transition from the selection and let it get up on its feet. we will permit that to be complete. >> klees wait for a microphone. we will take to questions at a time. questionke your specific and who you would like to begin the answer and we will start here in the front row.

>> thank you very much. and iarrett mitchell write the mitchell report. i want to question about the telegram. you have told us that it is clear that they will hope to be as disruptive as possible in the election process itself. the question i have goes beyond that. thatey make the assumption no matter how disruptive they therebe at some point, will be a new president and a new government? oh do they think they can model it enough that that does not happen? what would be the most likely post government formation strategy that the taliban could engage in that

would help them achieve their destabilization and reinjuring the government in afghanistan? >> let's go to the second question. >> thank you. said in your op-ed last we risk if we try to hold afghanistan to a swiss level standard in elections. you made an interesting argument effectivelyarzai tied the country together. affect how going to the election plays out? those are good questions.

government is going to have a tough operation. president, he is going to have to put together a government with a lot of very hungry supporters. none of the three leading candidates have such a strong base that they can push people aside and take other people. us af the three said to couple of weeks ago that they will have to reach out beyond their own coalition of supporters and put together a broader government in order for stability to take place. corruption, that doesn't tell you that you're going to have rapid change the matter who is elected and what they say now.

to be putting in place a network of supporters over whom they have loose control. they have to do a lot of balancing. it is not likely you will see a lot of balancing and keeping that balance by whacking people for direction at the same time. if the leader is more skillful, he might ask people over time. i don't think we should expect rapid change in government. all three know they have to have a better governance. with what tension they have to do. we don't know how that is going to work. in policy terms, it will be important that we are close to have that -- who that person is. we need to help them manage that difficult tension so that proves

governance rather than standing miracles of american we think should be immediately enacted. know't think any of us what to tell a man is thinking. their main issue is to discredit the new government. their approach has been hamid karzai is a foreign puppet. he has no legitimacy. we are legitimate. their goal is to maintain that situation. an election which has few adherents and a few people who vote and is badly contested by fraud.

the more the next government is legitimated by the election and by how accept it, the more the taliban is in a position of having a difficult discussion. i have no idea how they will come out on that discussion. there is long history of our growing out of a gun in afghanistan. it does not mean people will be instantly saying that is the rule people. >> i don't know what any particular taliban is thinking. they need to be disruptive. they don't believe they can stop the selection from being undertaken. they can't stop the government from being formed. in terms of the outcome of the election, an early endorsement and theandidate

formation of the government and a long-term commitment to afghanistan is essential. they been able to stay in the field and recruit based on the sense that the west was going to depart. they would ultimately be successful after our departure and the collapse of the corrupt government in kabul. the candidateho will be that is elected. signs the bsa, that would be a blow to the taliban. that president is intent on maintaining the relationship necessary not just for the ansf

but to create a stable platform for the long term that is necessary. it is important that that candidate right now be thinking about the first actions they will take to repair the damage that has been done with the rhetoric from the palace over the last several months. important things that could happen would be to sign the security agreement. that would be reciprocated by the unambiguous declaration of support by the west for that president and that government and afghanistan over the long term. doubled with the taliban narrative in trouble. we will see where that goes. agree with what the ambassador has said. i want to keep it simple.

government after will weaken the position of the taliban. it will damage their entire existence. it will prove that people want this system and want to vote their own leaders into office. create a huge trouble for the taliban. that, as long as the alabama remains hopeful for victory, they will not make peace. why would they make peace? a need for the treaty to be signed. there needs to be a strong and clear and consistent commitment from the international community.

reduce the hope of the taliban for any potential victory. the future government has to be a broad-based coalition government. again, what we need to do is we need to get peace and negotiations. from a position to make as, we have lot of concessions. considering the amount of , weifice that we have made can't afford to make concessions. i pray for a smooth transition. that, i ame achieved

confident that afghanistan will be on a path to long-term stability. two, allo to round endorsejor candidates this bilateral security agreement. american forces to remain in afghanistan after the mission is formally ended at the end of this year. that may seem like a technicality, it was the failure to get a similar arrangement with iraq that led to the departure of forces >> just to remind you of that. should say just to add he mphasized we should not take these positions at face value.

ashraf sounds the most combative and they give that some credence. abdullah may have the most specific agenda because he election of governors who now are appointed by the president. reform would like to see of the senate those are some ideas there if you listen to the agendas. but it is marched to say how translate into governance agendas. right there. journalses e few embedded-- journalists and my question goes to allen. how will they be able to compensate for the lack of their air force? and what kind of consequences will that have for the ability

fight the taliban apart from ess wounded will be brought home? that is is my main concern. which of the sk two leading candidates is best avoid federalization in afghanistan after the election? i think there was another question of that same general area. e will go over here >> i served under general allen in afghanistan for one year. that is why you are exhausted it would appear. >> i have had time to recover a bit.le regards by nature

the discussion today has focused essentially on what is happening but i of afghanistan think it is well known there's a environmenteat game that is being played out amongst particularly s iran, pakistan and india. i'm wondering how those what they are nd doing inside the country might impact the transitions that will what we might be able to do to help minimize them. i will start with general allen. >> that is a great question on air force. the build won't be complete ntil about 2016 so we will continue to provide support right to the end of the mission. provide ontinue to emergingsupport to the afghan air force and we will have our own assets that will forces. our advisory your point about the medevac is

point. important we never anticipated that the fghan air force would be organized or equipped to conduct the same kinds of medevacs that were used to every day. but we spent a great deal of work with g hard to the ministry of public health, he ministry of defense and interior to optimize all the resources across the country. the xample, rather than licopter medevac which away -- we became used to we built medevac most where a large number of armored vehicles were if someone is edevacked on the ground his afghanistan army buddy is trained in buddy care. wound being nt of he afghans have capacity to provide care on the spot and the medevac process begins by moving armor ed -- moving

that to an awfuled vehicle where collection ove to a casualty point where we take advantage of the local clinics over time e improved through the ministry of public which or field hospitals were purchased specifically for the afghan national army to be deployed when operations are occurring in the field at the core level. is that we are just not pulling out the medevac helicopters and your question is important one. we went to a great deal of trouble working with the general of the inisters to optimize all the resources necessary to take advantage of every capability we helicopter the medevac. there will be still helicopters fewer than youut are used to seeing. we have more work to do on the favors. we have the turboprop ground attack aircraft that is coming

a series of crimin is delayed ssues it but the intent was to use some he transport helicopters to pgun those to be a gun ship variant so they could take the turboprop aircraft until it enters the force. production of pilots in the afghan air force, enough pilots to fly every airplane they have right now so the process of needs also to s ontinue to -- to continue unabated. a lot of afghan pilots are era ng pay who are soviet pilots who are not flying airplanes. so the conversation i had with karzai is we clear that element of the population ranks that are olding up the access of the

younger afghanistan officers who are quite exceptionally well ualified pilots to get them in uniform and training and into the cockpit. that process will take a while. we have a gap between the end of 2014 and 2016 when the line. air force comes on but we will do whatever we can to advise them as best we can. thank you. i'm glad to hear some f the information from general all allen. not having the air force in one of the biggest complaints of the people in afghanistan, particularly our generals of the army and our president. so, i'm glad that there are that ties going on in regard. with regard to federalization, any candidates

advocating for federalization. it is not on their agenda. the only difference that we have the agenda and platform of wants to ah and he change the presidential system to a parliamentary system. it isn't the only biggest platforms that we have. all the others have advocate for current ion of the presidential systems. your question, josh, i think that the equations in the region are changing. accepting e group among our existence neighbors finally after 13 ye s years. not pretty confident but i feel like it is shaping up. stability in afghanistan is the stability in their

countries. and i believe pakistan is coming it will alization that only fail to help us our but it f using violence also hurts themselves very badly. region has a lot to there is economic cooperation and economic we have on because central asia with huge national with ces and south asia huge human resources and between we have afghanistan. stable afghanistan the entire region will benefit from that because they are each other.nt on happens with russia and ukraine, i think that will affect the policies in the

.arger picture further t say that increases the need for the nited states to have a major presence in afghanistan. and since the people of been badly hurt throughout the history from its the proof that the entire region, and a region anti-american sentiment is hestematically propagated by t governments, afghanistan is the which proved to be the united states. i don't want to say -- i don't about what the president is saying and it is not a good idea to give him much importance. because the more importance we rhetoric, the more

his objectives will be realize he will get more attention. so, we should stay cool about it. the united states has is the people of afghanistan calculationeria for needs to be the people of afghanistan rather than one person. one other point i would like to make hat i wanted to earlier about the future governme even if you have elections, the because everybody understands the taliban are the biggest them, they all of create take it to deadlock or instability. because any deadlock will -- the only group that benefit from deadlock is the taliban. a other tkpwraourgroups, it is

different situation for all other political groups in afghanistan. that will take advantage from that is the taliban and that is why they attempts to st create a coalition government so we put the real enemies of afghanistan at bay. >> now we will go to the ambassador for what will have to be the last word. >> i'm shaoure we have been in s anybody t suspicion, who opens with i don't have much to say on this but in view of i will try. on the regional, what you have now is everybody playing playingextent, pakistan to more, i hope my friend is correct. hear more discussion in pakistan. i don't see much change in the which frankly is very destabilizing to

long termn and in the i think destabilizing to pakistan. view.at is not their also in the long term afghanistan needs a kind of neutrality where it is not a partisan between pakistan iran or pakistan and india. i think that can only come when there is a government in that is strong enough to maintain basic internal order. without that you have a contest or power among afghans which inevitably draws in foreign support waver people agree to on will not be sustained. so it is a long-term vision but practicality.rm i agree that i don't think there is any candidate who is looking to federalism. is a lot of discussion of more by foreign ers than by afghans often because everybody understands a system which is centralized on paper and capable f carrying out the

centralization with which it is vested. is the lem decentralization in the present ski mstances would be to centr centralize to the warlords and effect okers who are in the problem of the government already. inchoate political mass ready to take up regional nor does tribalism have the same strength that it all of ears ago before the troubles. tribes have broken -- you are seeing that in this election. is enormous splitting within groups even. this discussion of a parliamentary system that has a long time.for it is very vague. st. heleexplains what they hav in mind. system would y probably mean even less

tability than you have now because a prime minister didn't on that parliament would have to renegotiate his mandate actually i should say he would have to on a hase his mandate virtually weekly basis. and that is a recipe for disaster. he what is meant by that might mean something akin to what was an appointed prime who could be dismissed by the president rather than by the parliament. that is really not a parliamentary position but you chief executive authority who is responsibility for running the government and can lightning rod you dispose of when he incurs too much and you can easure start with somebody else. that is possible but that is a long way down the pike. you.k >> we all wish i know the afghan a successful election and

join me in thank beiing the pan. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on c-span tonight a look at presidential6 u.s. candidates. then a discussion of the broke the edwin snowden story. then chuck hagel on the efforts improve the recovery of p.o.w./m.i.a. remains. >> on the next "washington the president of autism speaks. she will talk about the recent a rise in rt showing autism rates among children in the u.s. report census bureau showing residents leaving rural areas in record numbers. be joined by the leader of the urban institute. the executive director of compete america on advocating

tech companies in the h-1 process. "washington journal" live with your phone calls and twitter and morning 7:00 a.m. c-span. on >> mary barra testified about switch were. you can see that at 2:00 p.m. 3.stern on c-span timber town. you wouldn't know it to look at it today. almost er quality are was a ely removed but it timber town to begin with. at the height of the timber were to drop u into bend, say, 1928, you would

smelled the mills, you would have smelled sawdust. if you went through certain parts of town you would get clothes.on your you would hear periodic missile whistles from the gigantic mills river. it permeated everything. it would have been 10 minutes whereom the downtown core all the shops were but you would have seen the smoke from the burners.cks and you would have smelled it and known youwhistles and were in the middle of timber town, u.s.a. weekend book tv look at bend, oregon. p.m. eastern on c-span 2 and sunday 2:00 on c-span 3. potential 2016 presidential candidates and their responses to recent events. policy from "washington journal," this

is 40 minutes. >> our guest for this segment is political editor at national journal. thanks for being with us. >> good morning. >> you had a interesting piece that said foreign policy is vengeance in h a 2016. when you think of locations you don't usually think of foreign policy. through that. guest: you only have to look at the republican jewish coalition some of the leading candidates on the republican side spoke in las vegas. christie, john kay sick, general bush all focused on policy themes all critical of president obama's handling of foreign policy. you look at the broader picture with the challenges president obama's administration facing with russia, the civil war worsening in syria, looming the negotiations with iran over nuclear weapons, sort of ae 2016 being drop dead point for a lot of

these challenges for a new and new campaign and you look at even on the emocratic side hillary clinton in various speechers the last month has been sounding a more ton than president obama when it comes to russia in oneng putin to hitler speech and raising the stakes on ran and showing skepticism of the administration's negotiations on that front. of warning l sorts signs and data points that although voters may not put policy on the map as top priorities it is looming as major issue. mentioned hillary clinton. she made remarks at the american jewish congress. i want to listen to them and get your response. [video clip] >> the coming months will be in several regards. first, of course, the hopes for just and lasting piece that security, israel's that creates a comprehensive

two states for two peop people, and a peace for the which of course is only ossible if we ensure that iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. at the ary clinton american jewish congress. your take. forceful a very speech. she agreed with some of the oreign points on obama's foreign policy that she led four years. but when it came to iran she xpressed deep notes of skepticism. if you borrow a phrase from it was aesident reagan very much trust but verify type of approach. sound initely didn't optimistic for the american j sh congress one of the jewish groups that i think a lot of their donors and leaders are very optimistic that there's be some kind of grand agreement that will be workable. to the crowd ying but expressing distance from president obama and his more

that there can be a negotiated path to the issue with iran. caller: does her time as secretary of state help or hurt? don't know if we can say if it will help or hurt but famously gave a recent button to her counterpart with that now we are seeing the aggressiveness that and her optimism diplomacy with russia it looks like it will come back to bite her. comments vis-a-vis no tbe in her favor. so if there is anything that will be ocused on it her record as secretary of state and i think there are a lot of benghazi, oints, russia, iran on the leading edge of things. we have the political editor at national journal. if you want to join the

on the may 2016 field you can call in. the first call this morning from carolina, s, south otis on the line for democrats. caller: hello. host: you are on with josh from journal.onal caller: i was calling about ukraine. is doingecretary kerry sanctions against also having other nations involved in it. i think they have done a great of putting the same thing on country.

about what i have to say it. guest: secretary kerry was in meeting r the weekend with his russian counterpart. at russian diplomacy utin called president obama presumably to seek a diplomatic agreement but it didn't seem to and kerry's conversation with his counterpart was unproductive. eems like the administration wants to find a diplomatic solution and try to avoid with russian but troops on the georgia border and hen you have the troops on the eastern ukraine border there are very real reasons to fear that situation will get worse and won't be a diplomatic situation that will - solution get outs of it. op-ed from rand paul he said he would take a harder substance against the president. he wrote the invasion of ukraine s a gross violation of that

nation a nation's sovereignty and an the national community. talk about his foreign policy? noninterventionist candidate among republicans. rand paul has moved to the middle if you will. sounded more belligerent and upset and calling the do more in on to response to russian aggression. it is very liberal but if you opinion polls a surface read you would think his default. is the national polls show only about a third of voters want america to involved in what is happening in russia. but when it comes down to the the actualnd down to event that happened, americans interventionist than the public polls would ndicate and paul's position is the indicator of that.

christina from michigan. caller: thank you for the ability to call in to c-span. all of thiswatching for years. i'm a 68-year-old woman and i of the republicans with all of their criticisms on nst president obama policy but i see what they did when they were in charge. going in iraq as far as i'm concerned only strengthened iran. that is a problem that president obama is supposed to some. into afghanistan, war and if we had just bombed ain for are bor out of there we might have done better but that is not republicans did so it is hard to listen to the republicans and all their criticism when i watch what they did and i talked with military

thought rumsfeld ought to have been hung and i criticizing everything. ussfeld was the one that got into a mess we are in. so, i really have a problem all of these republican criticisms because i have been watching this for a time. they have nothing to criticize president obama. they are the ones that got us this mess and he can't get of a of this in a matter year or two, the same with the economy. republicans got us into the mess. uest: well, to the caller's point, the administration, bush administration, have led to n president obama's n policy in thenist syrian war and what is going on

in ukraine. the public is war weary and foreign not a mood for conflict, to get involved in foreign conflict. with thethat has to do problems we faced in iraq. hat said, once there is a crisis that affects the united states if russia invades more of the public can bet opinion will move more in the interventionist direction and the president will respond. host: pew put out a poll and it two to one oughly margin it says it is more important for the u.s. not to a situation with russia and ukraine. given that and some things you if you are a prospective candidate how do you walk the line between knowing a war weary nation and deal with the crises? uest: that is what is fascinating with foreign policy opinion. more than any other issue the

policyopinion on foreign is very malleable. if there is a conflict or crisis ou see the numbers change significantly. it is also an issue where the role inlpit has a major effecting public opinion. f president obama was giving speeches on a weekly basis talking about the need for the support nato or -- help relieve the energy pressure europe is facing giving a regular set of speeches about the crisis in ussia i think you would see public opinion move a little more to the interventionist dial. president's instinct has been to not get involved. e's tried to find as many diplomatic options to avoid ramping up the crisis and that change as things develop but that instinct from white house has shaped public opinion. i think if the president was a

ittle more aggressive and assertive on chasing the challenges that the united faces and western europe the numbers would massive accordingly. host: there was an associated at s poll that looked president obama's foreign policy and said while americans have relatively ven him high marks on foreign policy he is registering the lowest level yet just 40% of americans approve it. has disapprove the way he handled the situation in ukraine. o about 57% and his interactions with russia. 5 54%. now when he was doing so much better before? . paradox.he the president's approval rating pollr example the cbs news last week 41%. was val on foreign policy the 41% -- lower than overall. so despite his not getting

conflict in he russia the numbers had declined pretty substantially the last six months on the issue. so president obama is very esponsive to where the public is at on foreign policy but the number has gotten worse. looking to the president for leadership on the issue and they are seeing the and the worsen president seeming to be a little bit helpless in affecting the outcome. so there is a conflict where the american public doesn't want too but they want t involvement when it comes to the actual outcome. host: rachel from california. can't believe all of these ignorant callers. they are ow if watching cnn, msnbc and fox. you have to really just go to press s

tv.com. news.ed i'm totally behind putin. obama's foreign policy is being pac's and nyahu and can't see this and the jews are trying to get us -- vladimir putin's public pinion is the lowest of any public official tested in the nbc "wall street journal" poll. caller aside putin, epublicans, democrats and independents can agree they view him unfavorably. host: craig now on the line for republicans from new york. believe is we should be standing up for the ukraine. think we should be putting in right now troops not in the and ne but in poland lithuania and those countries that border the ukraine.

don't know if putin's actually going to stop after and not try to go in and countries back. it just doesn't make any sense to me that he's going to do that. sanctions are very weak. the europeans need the oil something terrible. so, they are not going to put down heavy sanctions on the russians. know they have free reign. there and say s this is where you stop, you are you oing any further here, know, to me that only makes sense. you can't put troops in the ukraine but you surrounding n the areas and you can say look, there is where the lean stops, line stops, that is it. past this point. and if you want to, you can

feeding some tanks and for s and things like that the army in the ukraine without actually getting men on the and declaring war. you can support them to try to incursion on er the rest of the ukraine. so, there are a lot of things we can do and we've got to start showing our might we are a very strong military and they don't really want to mess with us. e have a president who absolutely will do nothing -- and i mean absolutely do nothing to show any type of strength. he thinks that if you go over kumbaya everybody is nice it is going to work and it doesn't work. guest: the worry from especially a lot of conservatives is when the president set a red line with chemical to, ns in syria and tried because of congress's opposition nd public opinion tried to

wriggle his way out and find a russiatic option he gave a very important buy-in in that foreign and a lot of policy experts and conservatives point to that moment when we some kind ofo find diplomat way out and russia offered that olive branch and situation k like the is improving in syria and now russia not only gained political there but also now with their own advances in ukraine. expressing a lot of the criticism where the administration is so eager to diplomat way out they are not using the power of the of ed states and power force. host: i want to ask you about another republican who is idea of with the running in 2016. cruz. he said russians are openly laughing at obama the only thing putin respects is strength.

laughing at the president the weakness and incoherent policy of the barack under secretary of state hillary clinton and under secretary john kerry has allies and put utin in particular in a far stronger position. guest: ted cruz is emerging as the hawk. sure for a ren't while where he stood on some of these major foreign policy clearly staked that ground the hawkish side of rand paul. run for president they are going to be competing for many of the same tea party voters. paul is likely to win the support of those less eager to crises overseas and ted cruz is positioning imself more with the evangelical side of the tea party who are much more eager activeling to support an u.s. role internationally. host: back to the phones. tulsa, gilbert in klahoma, on the line for

independents. caller: good morning. please let me have three quick points. and foremost, putin has more right to the ukraine than europeans had to this continent. the australian could not now -- continent nd now they have new zealand and maui. i saw they are asking for help. they are killing us by the year.ands a and what they have done and we are over there worrying about putin? right to what he is doing. and i support paoutd 100%. purity 100% and everywhere you see a european outside of they are on occupied land. when are we going to get it? all over olen land this planet, europeans. europeans and we are worried about putin.

neocons, you know it and i do, too. guest: that is one of the 5% of who support putin. the bigger challenge for the if putin tion is, decides to invade eastern kraine, if he decides that crimea is not enough and his oldiers are september across the border -- sent across the hoter or if there are other spots that would be a crisis point and the administration diplomaticst rely on sanctions and route. i don't think sanctions would work. to do something more forceful. host: one other leading talked an we have not about is chris christie. he is interesting because governors don't deal a lot with policy. i'm curious if you think that hurts him if he runs for rez. he is especially judged and s speech at the jewish polish meeting feels like his

come foreign r come policy expertise. bully orn of being the tough and honest and straightforward is a better way of conducting foreign policy the sort of way that diplomatic approach the relied on.ion has christie has, by being a new and new york r area has a very large jewish onstituency and he is very familiar with the middle east and israel. he has talked about that during the weekend.er governors already have a talking about foreign policy because they don't have to deal with it. but i think christie is -- i he would be pretty well prepared if he runs for president to handle conversations about the middle east. step into it over the weekend that we called the west gaza the occupied where he s which is got in a little trouble and he

by walk back that phrase but and large i think he would have pro israel the groups. host: next call from toledo, the line for democrats. is justi want to say it a joke. it doesn't matter what obama does, the jew is going to be the bad guy no matter whether. nything he does they are just going to criticize. like for instance with rush he curse and t not he saeid obama better be weak kneed and when he sent the navy seals in and they shot it was they sent the seals -- well, it is interesting when you look at the president he handled foreign policy in the re-election looking at how he is handling things now. the administration and president

to talk just about killing bin laden and that was a ig part of his foreign policy messaging in 2012. and the other flash point was with mitt romney over russia being the biggest geopolitical threat. now he is having to deal with the foreign policy legacy and he can't rely on killing bin laden americans ing how view his foreign policy legacy. he ot a little testy when was asked about mitt romney and came toas right when it saying russia was the biggest geopolitical threat. memphis,ther call from tennessee, perry on the line for independents. yes.r: i wish america would really look at the track record of the united states. talk about saving the people, bringing democracy. dismal failure. nothing but chaos.

terrorism in libya and averages and iraq. we give iraq said back to the people. we gave back to the terrorists. up. will these people wake in crimea the russians have been 1800 alleys.he what about bahrain. he people slaughtered there by saudi arabians. why don't we actually open our eyes and see that america has dismal failure and cannot be depended on to bring justice, and democracy anywhere over there. we need to bring our troops back this alone.ve how many sons and daughters do we have to give, how many dollars do we have to spend? i would like your guest to address that issue and be about this thing. tell the truth about it and stop men and women.ng guest: in american politics i is a divide between those who believe in american

u.s. hasalism that the a role to play in international affairs and leading role. a lot of that on the epublican side and also internationalists on the democratic side. then you have views like the call that are more of the rand keep our business to ourselves and not involve urselves had the activity of others. during the bush years it was the precedence but even george w. bush in the 2000 talked tial campaign r ut marks have a humble areign policy and the sides always taking place in american politics. both ve interventionists parties and both parties that less eager to get involved in conflicts overseas.

leading talked about republicans and former secretary of state hillary clinton. are there other democrats that speaking out this forcefully about foreign policy and distinguishing themselves as we to 2016?d guest: the short answer is no largely because there are not other democrats looking at running in 2016. when you look at the names that ave been mentioned, mark o'malley doesn't have much foreign policy experience under his belt. name mentioned brian schweitzer the former governor does tana is someone who take a very isolationist or non noninterventionist view. if he does challenge clinton he platform. unique but when it comes to foreign policy he would be running on side of terventionist the democratic party. he would be the rand paul of the democratic party. host: our guest is the political national journal. s.

for independents, our next caller is dave from long island, new york, on the democrats. caller: good morning, guys. kucouple of questions. ukraine, question is say we support the opposition, is there a chance the ukraine turn around and join the u.n.? -- if they did join the u.n. not u.n. but nato. thed we then be able to put an antiballistics missile defense ystems in ukraine like we are talking about putting in poland and turkey? it would that like -- is kind of threatening to putin? this he's portrayed as aggressive type of situation but more actions really

defensive? is he nervous we're going to try in se ukraine to box him with the missile defense system? missile defense is one of the big political debates and en republicans democrats. the debate is that the obama canceled the missile defense plan in eastern europe which was intended to reassurance that the u.s. had no interest in presenting an aggressive posture toward russia but republicans and conservatives point to this america weakness and we shall redeploy to count aggression. that is is one political issue hat is sparking debate on the russian-ukraine crisis and that is missile defense. bronx, new is the york, alex on the lean for republicans. republicans.e for caller: good morning. i have a specific question that talk to have the guest

about. why do we have to get involved in their domestic issues? point that i want to it.to [inaudible] we have a lot of conomical problems and somehow our citizens have enough money authority and of job pls people who are and doesn't have enough salary their lives and stuff. putting the by ressure on the russian government it takes back a disadvantage for our governments of use there's a lot american citizens who invest in reparations and

sanctions on this country we top investing in that country which has a lot of benefits to our country that can help and our economy. thank you. famously sident obama said this past year that we should focus on nation building building d not nation abroad and that is a common sentiment at least on the voters and a lot of that is a challenge that the president is facing, whether to up the pressure on russia and i can imagine president on the hoping to focus economy become -- back home to he would rather have deal with that than unforeseen policies overseas. host: the next call is from boston, massachusetts, judy on independents. caller: hello. good morning. i want to know why no one is talking about even that the united states wanted to be over the world

like the ukraine and venezuela .s because of the labor cheap labor and they want to get it everywhere. cheaper. it doesn't even matter. that is why like the richest in america are the ones that changing the law and will you in congress. we should make it if you have never worked a day of lebron you -- worked a day of lebron you should not be making laws because they keep and that er the power is unacceptable. hat is is why we're going to war because war brings money. guest: i'm not sure if that has policy but oreign hortly there have been cuts to the sequester and defense budget is something that will come up 2016.olitical issue in he notion that if we do have

conflicts emerging you will hear both democrats and republicans a larger military budget to handle the conflicts. host: one thing we have not is marco rubio. there is one republican that would clearly enefit from a renewed focus on foreign policy it would be marco rubio who didn't have a good with his issues immigration reform proposals but has sounded his voice when it to talking about foreign olicy and speaking to an interventionist tone with his comments. ago and a few weeks focused on fortune policy. get a great reception with the conservatives but i a nk it resonated with broader elite especially those looking at the 2016 presidential election.

him as one of the few candidates that has some foreign the foreign e on relations committee. so has it under his belt and if overseas andflicts clinton is using her secretary of state experience to her advantage i think that you will a lot of attention paid to front-runnerw as a for the nomination. in : next we go to huey washington, d.c. on the line for democrats. turn down your tv we can hear and talk with you a little better. to talk about -- down or we our tv will have to come back to you. caller: what i want to talk basically is that the real reason ukraine and them are they problems is because have the natural resources over there. corporations here in america want to maintain their over foreign rol

la materials. they are going to kill the indigenous people that live on control them at lock at we need to do is the people up in congress and fine themorations and or the stealing and piston frid -- fill fehring they have been doing. it is the nything resources that europe depends on from russia that have hidden more active response from the united states and western nations, e.u. so if natural resources are role in the conflict it is if favor of europe not as robust as it could be. ont: next call from illinois the line for independents. caller: i'm a vietnam veteran i served my country for

was on a years and it frs disability that forced me out. going to say this. we haven't learned a thing from what happened in vietnam. we went into afghanistan and we were only supposed to go in get the taliban out yet we decided to stay and we went we did.q the way that now, i'm going to tell you something. only two major functions that it has a responsibility for. security of the country the other is to take care of the needs of the country. you start getting overly for the on government military and neglect the people, going to be any safer than if putin came into this country. would like to know what your comment is on that. thank you. saying, ke we've been

the sentiment not to get russia and into some of the conflicts that are is certainly alive and well. the question is if things get furtherf russia invades will public opinion change and will president obama's tactics confronting russia become more russia. the role of foreign policy in presidential campaigns takely changed? guest: it depends on the issues and the time the campaigns are run. 2004 and it a large extent 2008 the dominant was issue. president obama wouldn't likely have won over hillary clinton if was not for her positions to the center on the iraq war war.rting the iraq in 2004 president bush used the the t of terrorism and election as a referendum on his war, which the iraq

voters judged in favor of his record than john kerry's. so, foreign policy is an issue when it is front and center of facing when we are pressing as not as they haven't been the last five policyyears then foreign do not rank as a major issue. but god forbid if there was a attack or awful conflict this took place you could bet that the public concern over foreign policy go straight back up. leonarde next caller is from florida on the line for democrats. leonard, you are on "washington journal". aller: i would like to -- host: you need to turn down your tv a little bit. sorry.: i'm host: let's try it again.

that i'm ke to say -- i would like to that we port the fact with the problems at home, but i totally disagree with what is going on with and the ukraine. he united states has always supporter and supports countries that are about to be off tak -- overtaken. we did do the iraq war and we did do some good. obama's getting putin is laughing

at us. sochi olympics and all that while we were unaware? that.t believe we leave the olympics and russia over into crimea and takes and they are laughing at the united states. and i fear that the rest of the a very close g look at what we are going to do about this. mr. obama does do something something. guest: it does seem an event the was caught off guard from russia's aggression and you can look at the aggression's rhetoric in the opening week of the conflict hen you would hear obama and john kerry talk about how russia way ting in a 19th century as opposed to 21st century but i don't think putin was very moved that type of rhetoric and much more moved by the old chool power politics of

generations past. so, this is an administration ight now that is in a very similar point, foreign policy central issue his final couple of years and how he handles russia and the conflict are likely to shape his long-term legacy. host: a couple minutes left. let's go to j.t. in red oak, the line for republicans. caller: good morning. had a comment regarding germany's role in all of this. we s interesting because don't really want or need the nato.e in and i don't think that is even a question. but i think that part of this back to 1999 when germany finally got accomplished what intended to get accomplished 50 years earlier in yugoslavia.ing of and russians like so many in the and near east and

eastern europe have long that es and when they see i pening in yugoslavia and think putin has done that and i do find it funny the previous made the link between the sochi olympics and shortly invasion of crimea. that happened once before i elieve with russia and the invasion of georgia but i don't hink mr. putin has any designs on taking over and annexing the ukraine andlican of returning to a soviet union. don't think that the wealthy astern elite in the ukraine would put up with more than a ursory invasion and nonprotracted stay though i do believe that something like that moldova could happen and i think we will see something like that this year.

guest: the caller brought up the intervention with the clinton 1990's andion in the when you look at public opinion t least after the involvement took place strongly in favor of humanitarian involvement that u.s. and european balkans andd in the that was preceded by strong calls by tony blair and bill clinton. level of t seen that presidential outspokenness on the issue. i think that is one thing when look at public opinion how active a president is in calling role in ater american handling russia. that will be a big indicator. the political editor at national journal. today.for being with us >> on the next "washington liz feld will talk rates he rise in autism

among children in the u.s. then a census bureau showing areas ts leaving rural for more urban areas. and the executive director of advocatingrica in for the visa process for highly skilled workers. "washington journal" live with your telephone calls and comment on twitter and facebook at 7:00 a.m. eastern live every morning on c-span. longerissue is no whether to trade, how to trade. what are the rules of engagement ? the issue of protectionism and free-trade is over. it is history. the argument over the roles of fair trade and how to get workers and businesses on a fair

playing field is the debate of the present and the future. achieve must be to compatibility between all countries that are trading, just --we had conch -- come compatibility between all of the states of the united states. started before the cold war ended and before the wall fell in berlin. during most of the cold war experience, our standard of living was rising, and we were locked in a battle with communism. we did not care too much about trade treaties. we never had a debate on the floor that i can remember about a trade treaty because we assumed economic growth and trade treaties were always subservient to defense and foreign-policy. aadies and gentlemen, this naft

tonight is the last of the old world trade treaty. americans now realize our standard of living has been declining for over 15 years. they realize that our most important national goal must be a rising standard of living here at proponents of this nafta represents the past, the status quo, and fear of real change. >> find more highlights on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago, and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> coming up on c-span tonight, a discussion about the edward story, nsa leaks followed by chuck hagel on efforts to reveal p.o.w. remains. later, an examination of the candidates of the upcoming

presidential election in afghanistan. >> we have to remember two things, i think -- first, we are there because we were attacked in new york city and 3000 americans were murdered. that is why we went to afghanistan to give those people that are killing us. second, president obama has said there is a limit, within two years, we are not doing it anymore. so, i agree with you, julie, at some point you have to let them do it, but in our first goal, if we get away from the afghans, etc., and look at what our first goal was, if i told you or any of the listeners in 2001 that we would not be attacked again in the united states of america for the next decade none of us would have believed that, because at that point al qaeda had more of the advantage.

qaeda, the al terrorists, definitely on the defensive. outan, at this point, get most of our sources from afghanistan. so, i agree with you, but we have been successful in what we really wanted to do, protect ourselves. vietnam vet, assistant defense secretary during the reagan administration, analyst and author, bing west will take your calls live sunday on "in-depth." >> the three journalists that broke the story about edward snowden's nsa revelations. this is 45 minutes. hanistan. >> hello. please, take your seats. welcome back.

this next event, i promise is going to be interesting. it is a skype interview on the snowden revelations. skypes.ves four that is the miracle of modern technology and it will either work or not work. it is very tricky so somebody may go down, somebody may have a time delay which is happening with one of our three guests. analogous to the quadruple somersault ringling brothers. please, bear with us. we will have problems from time to time but we have an excellent team of techies. i know because i can understand anything a say. it is my pleasure to interview -- introduce our interviewer,

roger cohen. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. we are going to rely on technology to try to bring this in balance and ignore whoever may or may not be listening. i think it is fair to say that in the immediate landscape there is a before and after edward snowden. nsarevelations about global data vacuuming are backed with concrete evidence. the feeling i think that many of us have had since 9/11 that something has gotten seriously skewed in the appropriate balance between national security and press freedom.

the state, the surveillance state answer -- and civil liberties. edward snowden is a rock star to some. two others, he is a traitor. ype, we haveia sk the three journalists who were entrusted by snowden, chosen by snowden to be the recipients of top-secret nsa archives. is laura poitras who is an award-winning journalist finishing a trilogy of movies on the post-9/11 america. this last movie concentrates, focuses on snowden. along with glenn greenwald, she traveled to hong kong last may to interview snowden. that gentleman is a senior fellow at the century foundation.

a pulitzer prize-winning reporter over many years on national security issues. glenn greenwald is an investigative journalist, author, and columnist now at first look media which is a new journalistic venture which is backed by the ebay founder. he is also a former constitutional and civil rights lawyer. well, hi, everyone. the most obvious fact about the three of you right now is that you are not here. lenn, when ig met you that there was a nontrivial trended that if you travel to the united states you would be arrested, you said. can i begin by asking you if you still feel that way and why you do? >> i feel that way even more

now. it was a couple of months ago when you were here. episodes been other were international security officials have made very clear that they view what we are doing as being not proper or dangerous and actually criminal. james clapper has been running around calling the reporters work accomplishments -- accomplices. committee, the house mike rogers, said that what we are doing was criminality and thievery. propounded --r pounded that theory that we were selling documents which was what a lot of people have been saying -- which what a lot of people have been doing for decades. creating these theories that could criminalize the journalism that we are doing.

wrong tot would be allow that kind of intimidation to prevent us from doing what we have the right to do, including returning to a country. i do still think there is a rift. there a lot of divisions in the u.s. government about what should be done. my belief is still that they would do the right thing. >> are you going to come back? >> definitely. it is inevitable. we are still figure out exactly when that will be. we were honored. there was a ceremony. that will be an interesting opportunity to go back to. there are other opportunities like that but we are still figuring out. at some point relatively soon, i .ntend to test the proposition

been at, you have airports and elsewhere over several years. i am sure you share some of the same concerns and maybe you could tell us how you feel about coming back. let me add this question. edward snowden appeared recently via skype at sxsw with a backdrop of the american constitution. is mr. snowden an american patriot? >> thank you for having me at this event. it is great to be here. in terms of coming back, it has i'vewell documented that been stopped for several years while crossing the border. computers have been confiscated.

my main concern is different. i'm not worried about being arrested, i am worried it would subpoena me. i think it is real. yes, i am going to come back for sure. i do hope that we can talk about protecting freedom rights because what we -- the real topic with a real urgency of what we need to do is talk about the sources. he put his right on the line to reveal what were illegal fighting programs that were be done. they were collecting entire countries information so we put his life on the line so we feels

ingratitude towards them. >> are there legitimate government secrets? >> sure, there are. if i could just backtrack for one second and talk about the legal environment. directornificant that clapper use the word a compost is. -- accomplices. the inspector general use the word agent. frameworkd the legal because of the espionage act of 97 years ago with which our it.rnment -- we are talking it has been the political culture that is graded the bearings for that. whether the is

government will begin to shift that. i think there are legitimate national security questions. the government is charged with protecting its people against external threats. the question is whether that -- the question is whether the boundaries will be drawn by the people. it is a level of principle. is whether the government represents or get to do it all on its own. bydo you systematically run the government? ask for a government response on the stories you have done on the snowden revelations or other stories about the nsa? that is still an essential part of what we do as journalists? >> i approach the subject of my stories and have always done that.

i spend most of my years reporting on them. there are times where i understand the -- with the documents say and i tell them what the story will be. sometimes i get contact. i discovered that something might not be right. there is an opportunity for them to say, we will ask you not to publish this or that for the following reasons. my sense is that we need to require the authenticity of that before we have a conversation with that. if it was real, it will be the following. and the executive editor of the washington post believe there will be damage.

>> do you feel the same way, glenn? i think in all the reporting that i have done, i have not. the people i work with have come to the nsa the same way they would go to anyone that you reporting and say this is what you intend to report about. what is your comment or implement? -- input? i think it would be ridiculous not to do that. why as a journalist would you want less information rather than more? i have been critical in the past that journalists spend lots of time cooperating with the government and almost negotiating what it is that can or cannot be published. you often spend months with senior officials talking about the stories that we want to publish. that is starting to cross a line

where you put the government on the editorial board of. i don't think the washington post or other newspapers have done that. that has been the case in the past. i do think that newspapers have aired a lot, very important -- poorly on the side of limiting information. holding on to the bush nsa story for 15 months and finally only publishing it. in general, i think that process is important realistically, legally. lawyers will tell you that you should give the government the opportunity to have input. it is important that it doesn't become a means by which the government is reporting it. when the government says we don't think you could publish

that, it will be published anyway because they didn't have any good rationale. >> there was a strong feeling among some people that edward snowden has threatened the security of the united states. that he took the oath and reneged on it. stories since his revelations revealing nsa intercepts of transmissions between taliban fighters or intercepts of e-mail regarding intelligence assessment on iran. that is not domestic surveillance. it is not spying on allies. it is what intelligence services all around the world do. or immoral illegal and how is it not damaging to the united states? all, either member

the intelligence committee regarding the constitution. he thought it had violations. i think it is important to understand the process that he used. it is so often distorted and missed described. edward snowden has not published a single document in the last nine months. >> but you have? >> i have. laura has. >> what is the difference? did not think that he should be in the position to decide which documents ought to be published and which ones ought to be suppressed. well-established, well regarded newspapers and to makee journalists those judgments about what is in the public interest to be published. specifically, a lot of what i am background,s for

context, per understanding but i don't think all of this should be published. if i wanted this publish, i wouldn't need you guys i would just publish it to the internet. there are stories about things like -- a story that is public that shouldn't be -- i think the question why it is published should be posed to the journalist and not necessarily snowden. i will say things the country due to one another are incredibly newsworthy. the new york times pre-snowden reported that the israelis and by using are engaged incredibly sophisticated viruses. that doesn't mean -- >> do you in your head draw a line somewhere between newsworthy and endangering? >> sure. the reason why nine or 10 months into the story we have published

top-secret documents is because we are constantly engaged in that political process of what is the newsworthy but would avoid harming innocent people. i think we have done a good job at that. -- there wasthat zero -- not a little bit, but zero that a single story has caused harm to any individual or endangered national security in any way. all we get are very familiar, vague rituals that government officials do. nothing specific or concrete about any harm being done. >> please feel free to jump in any of that, laura. i would like to ask you about of howstion you raised our source is to be protected? whichama administration

jim risen called it most hostile ever towards the press have had a very aggressive anti-leak campaign targeting leakers. the technology is there to trace them. going forward, what is to be done about that? that is why we are gathered here today. i would love to talk about those issues. our job as journalists is to protect sources and we have to do that. we know that from the experience of vap case, that the government is using the technology to find out who publish the documents. we have an obligation to use means to protect our sources. we need to learn how to have these tools if we

wanted sources to come to them. one of the things that is been no shocking to me is the lack of technological awareness among news organizations. encryption which are not that, located to use if you want to protect someone. there are tools that we use every day on the internet. accounts thatank encouragement -- encryption. the most familiar accusation for any foreign correspondent in a sensitive situation like a war is that you are not a journalist, you are a spy. if we start using encryption or even elaborate encryption, isn't that just going to reinforce exponentially the perception of those that might be detaining you that in fact you are an agent, not a journalist.

>> that is ridiculous. do use encryption every day when you connect to the internet. i think one of the results of those disclosures and that encryption is going to be easier to use. i think that is going to become ubiquitous. privacy.n't expect the e-mail is meant for the people they're sending it to and i think that is going to be one of the repercussions of snowden disclosures. invade think that will or flag people. i think we need more encryption. >> sorry. you wanted to jump in? >> i do. there could be a political that theh view

government want to know everything about everybody. that is an accurate. it wants to be able to. in regard to encryption, you use the word fred -- thread. virus products, anonymity products, it acknowledges no realm and human indications which is prepared to be denied. problem is the that it includes journalists. the u.s. government in general are users of this technology. which arecause leaks anything that the government is doing that doesn't have a press conference about. the has to be counterintelligence threat.

counterintelligence is one of the principal missions of the u.s. government. when you start regarding journalists as a threat, you open up all of the criminal, legal, most extreme kinds of surveillance tools that are available to you. you start using that sort of technology. i completely agree with laura about the necessity of learning encryption which rambles the content of your communication and anonymity. there are some journalistic problems. it is first contact problem. almost all the sources i have developed over the years have whileeople i met in iraq i was with military personnel. or at promotional events in washington.

maybe that leads the side conversations or a phone call. five or 10 conversations that will be normal and then gradually you develop an interest. you start string closer to the line because their bosses do not want to talk about that stuff in public. this doesn't matter if you are not -- that is a problem that is hard to solve. edward snowden is one of the small sample of people in my career whose very first contact with me, through laura, was entirely anonymous and encrypted. there is some progress here. .here is a terrific program a piece of technology that is being developed called secure drop.

what makes it easier to make first contact with a reporter. we have a long way to go on that. >> sounds like maybe we we should -- we should be learning different things that journalism schools these days. >> it has to be a mandatory course. >> encryption? >> the basic ecology of privacy. encryption. the government says we will need to subpoena journalists anymore because we know exactly who we are talking to -- who they are talking to anyway. do you think that describes the state of affairs now? >> definitely. i think there has been a lot of attention paid to the threat of the fourth amendment and privacy rights. person, every

word is being monitored. they could be if the government chooses. it is the capability for surveillance. there was a lot of attention made to the applications of privacy like how how do we adapt our behavior and we can't be certain that will be are saying or doing is actually being unmonitored? what are the implications for our freedom? is very little attention paid to the applications of the fourth amendment, the freedom of the press which is how you engage in a free -- have you have a free press? simply their metadata collection that they are doing, to know every person who is communicating with you. how can journalism be done in that environment?

how can attorneys investigate important details on behalf of their clients? pocket informant talk to human rights organizations and to do so with the security that they won't be exposed? it has extreme publications for rall range of core liberties, including the ones that americans -- it is important to our political freedom. i think that is critical. encryption is vital but it doesn't shield metadata. it shields content. you can seeols, some forms of metadata. people warned that investigating -- investigative journalism is coming to a standstill in the country because of what the government is doing. they mean that is become unnecessary to do that because the