have access to those particular documents, given that their own security was superior. >> one of the instances reported from "the new york times," where greenwald travel to hong kong, they were walking up and down discussing the contents of these secure documents so freely that they would disturb in passengers around them. they were asking them to keep their voices down. these are some of the national secrets that we expect governments and its employees to protect for us. i think we have to assume that a great deal, if not all of this information was completely compromised. that has a lot of implications for the ways in which we carry out our security services, which are ultimately protection of everyone in this room and in our respective countries. >> glenn greenwald was very upset about his partner being

assaulted, in his view, by british security services. he said it was an attack on free speech and the freedom of the press. but he was carrying stolen documents. is there any difference between that and, say, a drug smuggler stopped at heathrow or diamond smuggler stopped at heathrow? or some other illegal activity, although it is more serious? >> it was the smugness, the arrogance of it. this toxic combination of arrogance and incompetence has been one of the hallmarks of all of this. of course, greenwald said -- you arrested my partner, therefore i am going to be much more aggressive in my reporting. i know lots of things about the "english spy system" that i am going to reveal. if you have the audacity to stop my partner at heathrow, i am going to purposely damage your national security as a consequence. what sort of world do we live in

when that gets a pulitzer prize for public service? >> let's talk about that. my newspaper was just awarded the pulitzer prize for that public service. "the guardian" has shared in that award. you have requested that "the guardian" be investigated. for its revelations and harming national security. can you talk a little bit about whether the award was deserved? and why you asked for investigation of the guardian? >> well, whether it is an award for good journalism, as a politician, i declare an interest and do not want to make a judgment on that. but an award for public service? for possibly the greatest the -- betrayal of our national secrets of all time? that strikes me as quite bizarre. i do think that there is a real danger of a very cozy media atting itself-- p

on the back without really understanding the consequences for the dangers that we face in a very dangerous world. i think there is a dangerous disconnect there. as for the newspaper itself, my view was that if individuals give the names of operatives outside the u.k. jurisdiction, that would be a breach of the 2000 terrorism act in the united kingdom. if that applied to me as an individual, why would it not apply to a newspaper? this is not about the privileged position of journalism, this is about equal application of the law. laws are meant to apply to us all equally, not more favorably to some than others. i think that that applies also to newspapers. so, i asked the metropolitan police, after having spoken to the director of public prosecutions, we need a look at whether the guardian has in fact broken our main terrorist pieces of legislation as a consequence

of mewling 58,000 highly secret pieces of british intelligence around, or indeed, more specifically, exporting outside the jurisdiction the names of british agents and operatives. that is an ongoing investigation by the metropolitan police. >> you have not received an answer yet? >> no, and i do not expect them to do so quickly. it is a serious charge to be made and it is a serious investigation that needs to be carried out. i think it is ongoing and will take its due course, but it is very important that we do so. there are questions here about the relationship between government, civil service, and media. i don't think you can take the view that we don't want the media to be able to portray themselves as the victims of the state. the state's responsibility is, primarily, the security of its citizens. >> when i spoke to friends at the nsa, they told me that their british counterparts are absolutely flummoxed by the response to the leaks here and

to the nsa surveillance activity. that the british surveillance activities have deceived very -- have really broad support in u.k. as opposed to the united states. why is that? why does there seem to be some -- so much outrage in some quarters where it seems to be expected and supported where you come from? >> it is quite perplexing. from a conservative u.k. perspective, this debate has been very different on the two sides of the atlantic. in the u.k., the view of the public has sort of been -- well, of course our spies spy. if they are not spying, why are we paying them? that, i think, partly comes from our historical experience and relatively more comfortable concept of what our security services do. and also our experience probably particularly in

relation to northern ireland, where we saw the real threat on the u.k. mainland's and relied a great deal on the security services to protect us. also, i think it is about comfort with oversight. there is a fairly good understanding that we have the prime minister appointment of -- prime ministerial appointments of the cabinet, an unelected cabinet where the foreign secretary has direct oversight and control over gchq and sis and where the home secretary has control over the security service and we have the two external commissioner judges appointed by the prime minister, you have the security committee in the house of commons. there is a confidence and understanding of that oversight. in the united states, the debate has been hugely focused on what the nsa does or is capable of doing in terms of civilian interception.

rather than the other two elements, which i described as how the security services go about their business and the means by which they do so, the compromise of that, and its consequences. also, the impact it has on the personnel involved. i just find it strange debate. what have we learned so far? following the snowden revelations? has anyone shown that any of this surveillance activity has been illegal under the oversight that is set out in the united states? under a system that is overseen by congress where permissions are given by presidents of whatever political color. the last two administrations were very different. it seems to me that the argument has always been hijacked by -- lets, what we might call it a

libertarian element in united states politics where i think insufficient balance has been given in the debate to a real damage to the national security perspective. watching it from a u.k. perspective, it seems to be rather odd. some of those i would normally have expected to be out there, outraged at the damage to the security of the american people, they seem to have been focused on whether the nsa have the ability to intercept the e-mails of people. i find the balance of the debate somehow just difficult to understand. a it is fascinating. as you point out in your piece, glenn greenwald, the guardian, some of these people are very openly anti-american, anti-western, yet they seem to have tapped into an opposition on the right in the united states over these things. do you think american conservatives have been duped by

the sort of left wing cabal? >> i think it is a matter of priorities. it is a legitimate debate. let's face it, in any democracy, the level of surveillance that security services are able to have. and the level of oversight that they have, that is a legitimate debate. i just find it odd that the debate here has been so skewed in one direction without looking at what dangers our children are being placed under, with pedophile rings knowing how we operate against them. by our entire industrial sector being potentially more open to industrial espionage. the security of our citizens now being more exposed because transnational terrorist organizations, against whom we have put so much effort to combat in recent years, now i know a lot more about how we owe

-- go about disrupting their activities. you tell me. why has there been such an imbalance in the debate? >> it is interesting, a lot of the -- the majority of the revelations have had nothing to do with civil liberties. which is fascinating. i think one former cia director i spoke to -- spoke with, we is espionageis porn. we worked on the russian leak that we discussed, that we had tapped into the server at a chinese university, one of the backbones of the chinese internet, which severely compromised our ability to collect on china. even "the new york times" revealed that they had used certain technology to tap into al qaeda computers not hooked into the internet. they thought that if they step off the grid they would be ok, but we found a way. the times reported that there is no evidence that the technology had been used against al qaeda

in the united states. does any of this have to do with civil liberties? any legitimate reason this should be in the public domain under any circumstances? >> i will probably get thrown out for this one, but just as i think there is a smug, self-congratulatory element inside the media, which lives in a limited double, i think the -- very limited double -- bu bble, i think the same applies to beltway politicians who are obsessed with the internal mechanics of politics and with, let's face it, abstract political issues that don't reflect the vast majority of citizens. nor does it interest them. what does matter is the security of those systems, their safety, the safety of the children, the ability to live without interference from foreign agencies and powers that will do them harm. what this is perhaps indicating is a dangerous dislocation between the political and media classes. the rest of the people in the

country would much rather listen to a debate about what matters to them and their safety and their families safety band some -- then some abstract political issues, which i think they feel are hugely ephemeral. >> can you talk a little bit about why signal intelligence is so important in the war on terror? if you think back -- our laws are actually much stricter when it comes to revealing these forms of intelligence as opposed to others. in world war ii if you expose a double agent in the nazi high command, that person might be killed, but it would not put the war effort at risk, whereas if we have lost the ultra program, if that had been exposed, the war would have changed. the signal has always been seen as a higher level, treated at a higher level. now we have had our signals intelligence basically baird -- bared to the world, with

enormous damage. why is that exposure so much more damaging than the interrogation program or other things that have been exposed in recent years? >> it is important because of the era in which we live and the environment in which our security services operate. the internet is a wonderful thing. it opens up information to us in a way we have never had before. it opens up information in closed societies. which is a chance to export values to people who otherwise would never have been able to give it. a tremendous opportunity in the era in which we live. but it has a dark side. the internet allows the enemies of our state to communicate with one another on a plethora of ways that they can do that. it allows them to organize against us, as we have seen in terrorist attacks before. it opens them up to uncensored violence they can teach them new ways of doing us harm.

if our populations are moving into that environment our , security services need to be there. they need to be able to operate in that environment because our populations do here again it would be really nice if we all operated in one information environment and are enemies -- and our enemies operated in another, but that is not the case. all the ways in which they transmit information and the ways we are able to intercept it are more vital than ever before. that has been completely blown apart. there are different estimates as to how much of the signal intelligence has been compromised, but we have to operate on the precautionary principle. that any think elements of been compromised, then we have to close them down. that means that a great deal of the time, effort, and risk that individuals put into getting this information is now lost to us.

why? because you had one ultra narcissistic individual who was able to and assisted by a number of others who had deeply anti-western interests to completely compromise us. the debate has not been about whether the industrial enemies of the country now have access to our intellectual property. whether our children were at risk from international child sex slavery. or whether we are more at risk from al qaeda or other terrorist groups. but it is all been this beltway discussion about what the nsa can do in terms of domestic interception of e-mails. i find this very difficult to understand. we need to grasp that this is not a debate about the freedom of the press. this is a debate about our national security, the most fundamental breach of our

national security, probably of all time. it seems that the penny has not dropped for many of those who should be the ones who, on behalf of the people of the country, are being outraged. >> the other day and the press there were satellite photos in the front page of the american papers of russian troop movements outside ukraine. we don't have satellite images of terrorists are pairing to -- preparing to attack us. basically, in order to find out when the terrorists planned to attack, we need them to tell us. there are only three ways to do that. the 3 i's. interrogation, infiltration, and interception. interrogation be don't do anymore. that stopped. infiltration is very hard. we saw that when a cia agent blew up an installation of afghanistan. we are left with, essentially,

interception. now that has been incredibly damaged. what is the risk that we face with the damage of another attack happening? >> much greater. it is impossible to quantify, but we know it is much greater. you and i, everyone in this room, anyone who might follow our proceedings, we are much more at risk, as are their families, because of the snowden revelations. so, when they are all congratulating greenwald, the guardian, "the new york times," and whoever else is lauded the pulitzer committee, they might want to think about the real story here. we are all more susceptible to all of the range of threats that i have already mentioned. i just find it breathtakingly responsible. -- irresponsible. >> cnn had a video last night of an open-air ok the meeting in qaeda meeting in

yemen where hundreds of these terrorists gathered, the number two leader of al qaeda spoke of them, rallied them, completely unafraid of drone strikes. in which he said he rallied them to the cause of attacking america again. how has the al qaeda threat, we keep hearing from the president that al qaeda is on the run, has been decimated, is nearing defeat. that does not seem like a terrorist movement on the edge of defeat, speaking openly like that. tell me what the al qaeda threat is today. >> they will be looking to see whether we are able to disrupt them. or at least we will want them to worry that we are able to disrupt them. that we are able to hear them. that we are able to intercept them. ultimately they will be looking to see our political reaction to the snowden revelations. so, has the reaction, in our three democracies, been to say that this is outrageous? that this is treason? that this must be dealt with

either full weight of the law? -- by the full weight of the law? or it has not been a beltway discussion where the media is congratulating itself for being able to tell the public just what a big security risk they have been exposed to. i think they will come to the conclusion that we are self absorbed in a way that puts abstract political ideas ahead of the security of our country. if we don't put the security of our country is our first priority, what message are we sending to the people who want to do us harm? i think that we need to remember that this is not, as i say, some smug, self-congratulatory political bubble that we live in. what we say is listened to by people outside, enemies as well as friends. i think we need to be fully cognizant of the encouragement that they will now have been given.

not only have we told them how we go about listening to them in particular, and how we have gone about disrupting them in the past, we have given them the names of our agents and operatives, putting those people much more at risk, they and their families much more at risk of direct activity and interception. and we have told them that our political response is to gaze at our navels, rather than be concerned about public security. i think that all of those messages are exactly the wrong messages to send. we should be ashamed of ourselves. >> the editor of the guardian said he testified before the british home affairs committee. no names of officials have been leaked by the guardian. >> bazaar from a man who says -- which is bizarre from a man

who says they have only read 10% of the documents they were given. if you have only read 10% and you are willing to testify to the committee a thousand comments that no agents names have been given, that seems to me to be an awful contradiction, probably in line with i think the full intellectual case that has been made by "the guardian" on this. as well as the responsibility of dealing with the issue. it is a demonstration of their incompetence, as to why the british government thought they were not to be tested with the information that they had. >> snowden, greenwald, they all said that this stuff was encrypted on protected files, safely hidden away. only 10% has been published. should we be worried that they are not correct? >> well -- [laughter] it is not a question of

whether they are encrypted or not. these are classified national documents. you cannot export them outside your jurisdiction without it in treason. even if you take their ridiculous argument at face value, maranda the mule was carrying the password in his pocket about the encrypted files. it is incompetence, arrogance, all added to a perverse anti-western the lyrical -- ideology. this is a dangerous mixture. why are we not more outraged about this? i am outraged, you aren't outraged, we should all be outraged. >> if only 10% has been published, 90% of it is out there and waiting to be shared with journalists, shared with the world, is there any way to put this genie in the bottle? are these secrets coming out whether we like it or not? is there a way to put a stop to these revelations? >> once it is outside our

and to the point you made earlier, it is very probably it is with the chinese and the russians, there is a reason to assume it would be. -- it would not be. now we have to accept that there has been phenomenal reduction in our ability to protect ourselves. there has been huge compromise of our security capabilities. we will have to invest in rebuilding them. we will have to look at what, exactly, the portion of our spending we contribute to security. these tremendous dragons that people rail against constitute 0.3% of total government spending and the equivalent of what he spend on the health service in britain every six days. or .7% of american total government spending. i think that puts it in perspective, but we will have to look at it again, how much we required to rebuild. we will have to look again at how we ensure it does not happen in the future.

for our protection we depend on the competency of government and the integrity of the individuals involved in the system not to ivulge oure -- d secrets. i think that we again need to be looking at the government system of contract users and individuals to make sure we are minimizing the risks. you can never eliminate them, but you can minimize the risk of a security breach like this happening again in the future. >> a lot of these leaks have had the effect of tying the hands of our intelligence service. for example, we were able to read out data computers not logged onto the internet. , and now they have other means. that ties their hands. the response from the administration and from congress, rather than doing is you say, to rebuild around this, it is to tie the hands of the intelligence services even more, showing americans but we are not listening to their phone calls and e-mails.

we will not collect this data anymore. we won't even require the phone companies to keep it. we are going to make it harder for the intelligence services. seems like the response should be to a leak like this that -- let's dramatically put resources into finding ways to affect our intelligence capabilities as opposed to the response of spending a lot of time tying the hands of the intelligence community. now that we have tied one end with the leaks, let's tie legislatively with the other hand. >> our biggest problem is we have a massive hole in the fence. the first thing is to rebuild and then maybe get a new fence. it costs money, time, and effort. i'm not sure we are focusing on the right things, as i said earlier. if our citizens were investing more of lives and time on the internet, then the argument

-- and not our enemies, then the argument might have some legitimacy, but that is where our enemies are. our enemies are in the security services, where they need to be. -- our enemies are where our security services need to be. rather than pandering to some of the arguments that have been made in the defense of snowden and his acolytes, i think it is incumbent upon our leaders to tell people the sorts of threats that we still face, to be realistic about the fact that since 9/11, the threats have grown, they have not diminished. transnational terrorism is more powerful than it was before. and it is why we needed to have the activities of the security services that we do. to point out the oversight we already have in place. that it is governed by law. that no one has been able to show that intelligence has behaved illegally or disproportionately within the the oversight they were already subjected to.

and the scrutiny they have from our democratic institutions. so, let's try to get this the right way up. >> everyone in this room are decent, law-abiding citizens. >> we hope. >> we help, yes. -- we hope, yes. who is tracking our movements on the internet more closely? the nsa and gchq or google? >> that is difficult to say. i noticed how in the debate people were going crazy about what the nsa were doing, but it did not seem to bother them when they went on to expedia and it somehow magically told you the hotels in the last city you were looking at on a different website, or that what you go shopping they are able to say -- we thought you would like this. people don't seem to regard that as an unwarranted intrusion, but when it comes to security services, giving protection to them and their families, they seem to be outraged by this.

am i the only person who finds an odd disconnect in this process? it is all about our sense of proportion and priorities. we depend on security services for our very liberty. what i find deeply perverse about the political debate is it is almost as though there is a charge against our security services that they are the ones who are threat to liberty, democracy, and freedom, when they are the ones who were there to protect it by ensuring that the enemies of those things are kept in a box. we need to get this debate in proportion, the right way around. it is seriously damaging not only our internal political priorities, distorting the internal political debate, but it is sending entirely the wrong signals about who we are, what our values are, and what our

intent is to those who would do us harm. >> if there is another 9/11, another london subway bombing, how will this all look in retrospect? >> i think that that is a really serious question. you could take a very politically tempting route to say -- well, thank you to the newspapers who have helped mr. snowden. thank you to those who have given awards to those who have helped betray our national secrets. but i think that we need to just stop there. and say, before we get into pointing the finger and the blame culture -- how do we deal with the much more important

questions, which are not the political ones but our security ones. how do we repair the damage to the system that has already been done? how do we prevent such damage from occurring in the future? how do we reorient our political debate so that it is about the things that matter to the people that we represent? and whose security we are supposed to protect? rather than the cozy internal world of beltway politics and journalism? time for us to get real. >> let's take some questions from the audience. we have one right here. we will bring a microphone to you. you have a choice of two. >> thank you so much for appearing here today and for the valid points you made. you talked about a hole in the fence. as far as i remember, edward snowden before he fled was not a high level employee. his highest level of education was a high school degree.

despite that, he had access to this top classified information. what does that tell you about the security of our intelligence services? >> as i said earlier, that is a very legitimate question about the relationship between governments and the contractors it uses to physically carry out some of the national security and the way in which they that their particular employees. their particular employees. you are right, this was not particularly detailed or specific elements picked off the shelf by snowden. this was more like a shoplifter running along the shelf, scooping off as much as he could. however, he did seem to know enough to make sure that what he did pick would do maximum damage to the united states closest allies. not just the united kingdom, but countries like norway and sweden, where the diplomatic relationship would be compromised.

so, while from what we know so far, and as we say there are tens of thousands of documents we have not yet seen, we know that he meant to do damage, but specifically how able he was in the time, we have to wait and find out, but it does raise questions about how government goes about the practicality of its security relationships. these are legitimate questions. these are questions he should be looking into and which, for the oversight elements in our respective countries, should be the areas of focus. >> thanks, dr. fox. i am a retired cia officer. i served for over three decades overseas, here in senior

positions -- i would not have known a fraction of the data that snowden leaked that i have seen. i would not have known that it existed or how to get to it, and as i said, i have been in this business a long time. what is your view about -- i know that you touched on it just now, but could you be more precise about how snowden could have been direct into this? it is inconceivable to me that simply by surfing the internet or by using his own personal resources he could have figured out what was most damaging to our security services and the western security services. >> well, there will be questions to answer. i think they are now beginning to be asked about his motivations, what may have been his earlier, if any, links to

any anti-american extra national groupings. let's call them that, for the moment. that is another very legitimate area that needs to be investigated. i think the first thing to look at is exactly the issue you mentioned, how was this able to happen? how was he able to get access to this information, given the life he operated? are those restrictions sufficiently robust? again, that is a proper area for oversight elements within the constitutional arrangements of this country to be looking at. i would hope that that is the issue of priority. >> thank you, dr. fox.

i am the chief political max.spondent for news it seems as though we are having similar discussions like this, year after year. in october of this year it will be the 59th anniversary that your foreign secretary said that kim fielding was completely cleared and was not a counterintelligence agent. just four years ago we saw mr. becks diaz and greece release the names of 2000 people who had secret accounts and were hiding money to avoid taxes. what can finally be done to actually have strict penalties on people who break the law and not make the kind of mistakes that allow us to slip through with this information? is there an answer to this? >> the answer has to be yes. we cannot continue where we are

at these relatively low levels, with employees making such great disclosures about information. we have to look at areas of encryption in terms of the information and the level here that employees have in terms of the ability to access it. how we store data. and whether there are simple firewalls in what we do. all of these issues have to be looked at. there will always be espionage elements with people who want to damage us, for whatever ideological reasons we have, what we can do is interrupt their ability to do damage. that is the area we need to be thinking about in this information age. otherwise this sort of level of disclosure would not have been able to happen. so, that is an area where we need to be considering.

i think that we need, in the selection of the employees, we need to be a bit more robust in questioning and assessing them. there is no quite stopping it. the business of espionage will always be there unless, face it, we are in the same business ourselves when it comes to protecting our own national interests. what we have to ensure is that we are better at it than those who want to do the damage. >> in the back, here. >> thank you. leandra bernstein. independent researcher and writer. i have a two-part question. first of all, you continue to refer to us and we. would you not agree that the

united states intelligence establishment and the intelligence establishment of great britain are fundamentally different? particularly regarding the history of the u.s. intelligence establishment versus the much, much longer history of great britain's intelligence establishment? secondly, you also referred to the arrogance of the media. well, the way that that -- there is an arrogance to the intelligence community as well, which is also rather insular. the message that many americans receive is an impassioned, emotional, we are protecting you, how could you possibly criticize us? that is the message, without much substance to it, and with a lot of hypocrisy. for example, in our response to

the drug trade, and our response to money laundering and these other issues that the intelligence community, chemical weapons, message -- weapons of mass destruction, issues with which the intelligence community ought to be taking greater responsibility for. >> well, first of all, it is the intelligence community, not the omnipotence community. we cannot expect them to be right about everything all the time. that would be unreasonable. second, what you describe as the arrogance of the intelligence community, that is the appropriate place for politicians to be talking about oversight. to be discussing the mechanisms of oversight that already exist inside a free market or a free -- inside a legislative framework in a free country like the united states. if they think there is insufficient oversight, then

there is a legal redress. that is a good debate to have. that is a live debate that should be perpetually happening. when it comes to what i described as the arrogance of the media, i don't by any means mean the whole media. you know exactly who i am referring to. in this particular element there , are huge elements of the british media who are completely outraged at the snowden allegations and the way in which "the guardian" newspaper in particular was willing to set them out and are angry about how how "the guardian" did not face the full wrath of the law that an individual citizen would have for that level of disclosure. there is quite immediate debate -- media debate going on in that. when i say we, i do this instinctively because i believe

that the three, and i mean this in the classical, small l, british liberal sense, the democratic people's of the world are united by our values. we are the ones at risk from those who hate our freedom, hate our democracy, hate our liberty. we have to, at some point, we have to grasp the fact that there are those out there who hate us not because of what we do, but because of who we are. it is who we are, what we have in common. it is those values we have in common. it is that shared history and contemporary existence that we need to protect. i am a huge fan of the united states. because i believe the united the context of american exceptionalism, it is

not pretend americans are exceptional, but that the constitution allows ordinary people to become exceptional or act exceptionally. that is the repository of the freedom we enjoy in the western world, which is why it is so important that this debate be focused in the right direction. we cannot afford an introspective and inward looking america in a world where the external threat have proliferated. because the threats are not just to you, but to us, to weed -- to we, together. i think that that is why we have got to have solidarity when it comes to the security debate. >> if maranda had been caught in heathrow with 63,000 blood diamonds, he would have been arrested. >> especially if his plane ticket had been paid for via national newspaper.

and he was carrying the cocaine for the newspaper. different questions might have been asked. very good analogy. >> why was he not arrested? >> he was arrested, of course, under the terrorism act of u.k.. what was the reaction of the press? was it to say isn't that great? our security system has intercepted someone carrying top-secret files that would blow 58,000 apart security? no.-- the reaction from the left of the media was to say that this was an unwarranted intrusion into the freedom of the press. first of all, we were told that maranda was a journalist. then we were told that he wasn't a journalist. he was assisting greenwald, who was a journalist. that we were told he was the partner of a journalist doing of informationng on behalf of a journalist because the editor told him to

regard electronic communication is safe. we are entering into some sort of alice in wonderland political existence when we get into this particular element of the debate. here was someone illegally carrying 58,000 files of security information from one foreign country through heathrow airport to take it to another country to break, in my view, a terrorist legislation, giving out the names of operatives to who knows who. and we are supposed to be embarrassed the we were angry about it. >> should he have been released or kept in custody and prosecuted? >> as a politician is -- it is not my place for me to comment on law enforcement in the united kingdom. but i think i have made myself relatively clear. about what i think should happen.

i think that there is a very serious national issue to be confronted here. what has become the conclusion? -- what if we come to the conclusion that is a -- that it is ok? what if we came to this conclusion that in the name of journalism, what if we came to the conclusion that it is perfectly permissible to operate in this way in the future? where does this lead us? where does this leave the ability of our security services to operate? what will be the relationship between the state, citizens, and media in the future? this is a vital debate in which we are now engaged. we need to get it right. i would venture to say that the greater intellectual input that we have seen to this point. >> it has been suggested that edward snowden, by some fairly

high-level people in government, that we should consider an amnesty deal for him, where he -- for snowden, where he would turn himself in, hand back the documents. do you think that would be a good idea? would it be counterproductive? >> on the documents? what are we going to do? ask china and russia to give them back and expect them to do so without having copied them? i mean, get real. the damage has been done. this is a man who has betrayed the trust and confidence placed in him by his own government and, by extension, his own people. he has done goodness knows what damage to the security of his country and the allies of his country. he has been willing to be best buddies with some of the most dangerous enemies that the country has. he has made it clear where his sympathies and values live.

-- lie. and we want to give him an amnesty? please. >> one more question from the audience. >> there you go. >> thank you. dana milbank. >> i didn't see you there. >> i want to ask both of you to say whether you think "the guardian" and "the washington post" or wrong to publish those initial revelations from edward snowden? >> the press are perfectly at liberty to discuss the extent of surveillance. we have laws in which those who have the initial data can access that data. within the parameters of the law that we have, it is a good debate to have. about the level of surveillance

that we have. what is quite wrong and unforgivable in my view is what i said earlier, to set out the means by which our security services go about their business. or even worse, the names of those whose lives are on the line to carry out that work on behalf of our respective countries. and when you get, as in the case of "the guardian," the unwillingness to hand back the information, which the government says they have no right to possess, that they are wrong to hold onto, and are incapable of protecting sufficiently, and hence in the bargain making themselves a target for anyone who wants to have that information and do us harm, to then have the on thetion they possess basis of a secure arrangement with the government they then break on the front page of their own newspaper a few days later and are taking the same

information to another jurisdiction by a human mule -- i mean, i really do worry about the ethics and integrity of that. problems being able in any way, as a democrat, to defend that as "freedom of the press." >> i would just say i have published a column in "the washington post" that they should not have published those documents and they are violating the law. it says very clearly, the word "publish." it is not just a matter of an individual exposing that. the publication is a violation of law. whether or not that would be prosecuted is another question. but certainly i think it would be incredibly damaging to do that. >> i think frankly it boils down to those of us in the political

sphere. are we willing to defend to our last breath the security of our people? are we willing to defend, as democratic institutions, the faith laced in us by our own people, including the oversight we have a responsibility to have on our security services? and finally, are we willing to uphold the law at any cost and at any inconvenience to the political process? that is the gauntlet thrown down to us. the question is whether we have the courage to take it up. >> i would just add, i think as dr. fox pointed out, you could make the argument some of the of a debateare part on civil liberties. how does revealing the fact that we have figured out a way to break into al qaeda computers when they are not connected to the internet -- which is no implications for civil liberties and the united age -- how does

revealing that help national security in any way or then civil liberties? so many of these revelations have nothing to do with civil liberties. there is absolutely no justification for publishing that in a newspaper. with that, i see we are at 11:00. so, thank you, dr. fox, very interesting discussion. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> coming up in about 25 minutes or so, we will go live to the white house briefing where we will hear from spokesman jay carney. he will be addressing reporter'' questions and we will have live coverage of that at 3:15 eastern. right now a discussion about

public security and the right of the public to know. is from the sources and secrets conference in new york city. >> hi. moderating this panel. let me start by introducing the folks to my left -- we have the executive editor of the new york times, the editor of the new yorker, the editor and publisher of the nation, the general counsel, office of the director of national intelligence, which oversees the cia and the nsa, and of course, the executive editor of the washington post. let me begin, joe, with you. we're going to have a conversation here. no set speeches or set notes. we will do a short question and

answer at the end. >> my notes are included. [laughter] know. i will call you by first name, because i know you. we are going to call him bob for now. begin, joe, we've year. the topic here today is where do we go from here? in september the times did a story, your first nsa story of this round, from mr. snowden, and you wrote a story or were reporting a story about how the nsa was frustrating attempts by banks and others to encrypt documents and activities they were doing in order to gather lots of information. you are goingine to see bob and you're about to publish the story, but you have to get the nsa's point of view on this.

so, make the argument to him about the story. you are going to him and you are telling him this is what we have and what is your response? talk to bob. >> ok, i am assuming bob has said to me please, joe, don't have the new york times published the story because this is part of the crown jewels of program,t intelligence the classified program. it would be damaging to the national security if the times publishes the story. i am just assuming that. is that the say public has a very compelling reason to know about the scope of all of these eavesdropping programs. that the same argument will tell her, who would -- who

was my predecessor in this job, and he and i together made that argument in 2005 to the bush administration about why "the times" felt we needed to publish the story on war and list eavesdropping by the nsa. it is the same reason. the public and president obama has actually given voice to this argument himself. there has to be a balancing test between the national security a war on terror is being waged in the name of the public, the public's right you know the dimensions of those programs. >> bob, pushback. >> for the first point i want to make -- we don't make that , assuming youill know what the story is. one of the frustrations i have had in this job is the reluctance to share with us what

they intend to say. conversations we had with reporters about snowden materials were situations where they sent a >> documents and we were told, we're going to publish these documents. tell us what concerns you have. and we said, what are you going to say about these documents? they said, we are not going to tell you that. concerns youwhat have. that led to a story that was significantly damaging and inaccurate. we have gotten details about the story -- i totally agree with jill's framing of the problem as a balance for the need for secrecy and the public interest in disclosure. to me, the philosophical question is poses is a variation from the first panel -- who gets to make that decision and why? for better and for worse, the intelligence community and the

executive branch is subject to significant accountability. we have accountability to the congress. people may question whether that accountability is good enough, whether it is structured properly, that we still have a degree of accountability and the president is ultimately accountable to the public areas -- to the public. the media is not accountable to anything other than the number of clicks on the website. i think there is a real political philosophy issue about who gets to make that decision. having said that, i understand the way our system is set up, we do not have the power to tell the press what to publish and what not to publish. from my perspective, i am occasionally troubled by the press saying, well, you tell us publishing the names of the countries where you do this particular activity is going to damage national security, but we are not persuaded. and that leads me to the question i have to ask which is,

who elected you? >> david, you are squirming. >> yes, i was, i was squirming. i do not think the people who have accountability or responsibility are elected. there is a first amendment in this country and a long-established practice of the rest putting pressure on power. that is a big part of what we do. talking points or arts coverage. putting pressure on power. if you look historically at these issues, time and time again, the decision not to publish, the decision to quash, the decision to shut up, to not have transparency is very often the wrong one, historically. are there instances where the press makes a mistake? a big mistake or goes too far? sure. but nothing like the history of records of

mistakes and catastrophes. without the pressure on governments from the press, we are lost. have done a number story from "the washington post" on the nsa and the snowden documents. what have you heard here that gives you pause? david, i feele that we play an important role in american society. we have a role that is specified in the constitution and is just as important of the government -- as the government's role. i respect their need to protect national security but i recognize we in the press have to serve as a watchdog on government and have a role to play. if we simply always the first to the government's judgment about what should be published, then we probably will not be publishing very much. certainly nothing that would

call into question the actions of government or the policies of government. in this instance, it is not just a matter of one source, one method, anything like that. what we have here is a national policy. a national policy and a shift of balance in a very significant to see and right national security. and there is a tension between those two, and probably a proper balance. i'm not sure i know what that balances. a role, iess has think, in helping the public understand what is at stake. and a lot of what is done, if not all of what is done, is done in secret. there have to be substantial public debates. what has happened here, these stories have ignited that debate. an important debate. and the press has acknowledged the importance of that debate.

>> bob, before i ask you a question -- >> feel free. >> what right does the government that does the government have to be the balancer? >> i think it was trying to be a little met -- a little bit more subtle than that. so both be present does -- does play a role. what i am calling for is more humility in terms of these issues. there is no question that there are some issues that have come out and are being discussed now, and frankly i have said publicly and i will say again i wish we would have found a way to bring those issues to the public before this started, because

perhaps we could have had the discussion in a way that had not gone into details like one of they are in fact strangely damaging to national security. that is the point to which i start to get into it. then we are turning to katrina. seeing these decisions and how they get made from the they are excruciating decisions often when we get a request from the government not to publish something on national security brands.

they held that story for more than a year and held a lot of public criticism. so excuse me, but i do not see a lack of humility. . the pressnwald said often exhibits too much exhibit he -- humility. specifically they could have had the time -- "the times" holding that story since 2005. do you agree with them on that? nationalk the relationship with free press to government should be an adversarial one. we are living at a moment when the oversight mechanisms of our country, legislative and executive, judicial have broken down and the midi -- media has a more critical role to play. country not knowing stories that have been the result of an adversarial,

informed media operating in the spirit of what is verifiable but first and foremost what is in the public interest. --m the day of takes, wished which the nation published the story in guatemala, "the times" held it in a week with president kennedy a week after the debacle. he turned to him and said wish you had printed it. you have the pentagon papers as a next-door he -- an example of a story we might not have had if we have not had the unfiltered leaks of the lifeblood of democracy. i think this humility of the all due respect the scene, because i think the press has to be a watchdog. is in the we know it public interest, but advancing stories we would not have otherwise known. guantanamo.

i think one of the discussions today is where do we go from here? the oversight mechanisms broken, what is the role of the press? >> the underlying political problem we faced, and i believe it was on the previous panel someone talked about how america and its greatness has turned course for different moment in its history. justice brennan in a very it orton speech on national security interests prudence raised the question of what happened to this country does not emerge as it did after japanese internment after other moments of violations of civil birdies when the press was able to expose it but also bring the country back into its spirit, which may be tough living with perpetual war. friendly tor is not media. >> i think the greatest enemy is not the fact that we are so overaggressive or arrogant but too much crap.

if you look at the media overall, what are we talking about. we have pretty respectable institutions represented here. that is not an across-the-board factor of life. look up and down the internet, there are remarkable ones. remarkable innovations in journalism. greenwald and fortress and the rest are starting a new venture. wish them all the best. i hope it drives. thrives. the government needs not less pressure but more terrific, exerted pressure in order for us to be who we want to be. when we fail collectively, often the pressuse in part did not play its role aggressively or skeptically enough. i know this from personal experience on both sides of this. so does jill, everyone here.

we are wrong. the new yorker was a matter of an opinion. the journalism done prior could have been immensely better. immensely better. i am extremely impressed once it started to happen. could have been more investigative reporting on intelligence, or the lack of it, this nation would be in a better -- much better position morally, geopolitically and the ramifications of that disaster will haunt us for decades to come. one last point. i am not suggesting for a second that that decision was probably artie made in the white house. but that was not a happy chapter. >> there was a journalist on the previous panel, mcclatchy played an important role, and i will

say in the dna of the nation there has been a skeptical and adversarial relationship toward government which moved us to raise questions, which led us to oppose the war in iraq. left mind it is not about and right. torture is unconscionable, not a matter of luck and right. watchdog isrk as a something very different. accountability journalism. it is about the role of the free press. definitional differences. the obama administration did except the word torture through word of wording and some of the things that went on in the bush administration. for instance, one of the earlier --els talked about long guantanamo as an outrage. would you agree with that you go guantanamo and the closing

of it? necessarily agree it is inevitably end in all circumstances wrong to hold people without trial. a standardntanamo is accrued tremendous of the law of war. i think we're trying and have been trying through the course of the administration to determine the needs to be held on who does not because there are in fact dangerous people there. i think guantanamo for a variety of reasons, became a symbol of treatment andnow should have been closed a long time ago. presst people in the would instantly say we should not report on troop movements that may endanger lives for instance. do? else would you not

what else would you not publish? >> i do not have a list of things we would not publish. i think we evaluate each story independently. we have a set of values we try to evaluate. to"the post" chose not publish the names of the countries that ran prisons. >> i was not there at the time. >> jill, what would you not publish? a boundary? >> i think there are certain standards obviously in any story where you think there are lives put into danger, you evaluate and try to be as conservative as possible without censoring an important story. secretcase and the , there was incredibly

strong reporting and the -- "the washington post." of storieshe kinds that are excruciating. in retrospect, we have 20/20 vision. those are precisely the kinds of issues you deal with like marty and david and i have. of will not hold the stories the existence of secret prisons will be disclosed. you are then asked to do is withhold a certain level of detail and specificity about where and names of programs and that kind of thing. --re is not government i am afraid will use the specter of caution risk as a

mechanism. in this situation of all the the abuseu graves, korans,ruction of crau and argument against publishing that or broadcasting it is it violencelame or start in an unpredictable way. not an easy thing to hear, even if you can rationally say the sin was in the sin, not the journalism. thingse to take those seriously and not be arrogant and dismissed it out of hand. for a lotstand that of people in the public that are very skeptical about journalist and journalism for reasons we can get into, they do elect them

as the arbiters. not all arbiters and society are elected. they are just not. that is part of the democratic society we live in. either they take their job seriously, thoughtfully and with some more old debt and precision or they did not. being elected is no death of rational or moral behavior. i want to respond briefly if there was a suggestion in david's comment that the government mixup the argument about lives at risk. i cannot speak anything other --n the last three years nine months. when people had to ploy the argument that publishing a certain bit of information will put lives at risk. that has been based on the general assessment that it would put lives at risk. it is different than pointing to the publication to say this

person was killed. of thee is an invocation publication will lead to terrible damage to the national security. department of national intelligence, he essentially perjured himself before congress. the fact that he has not been asked to resign. the overclassification of material, go back to the moynahan bridport, an important report on the treatment, handling and reduction of secrecy. so often the overclassification leads to journalist seeking lakes and finding other ways to get the information and so often it is about covering the backside of officials and avoiding embarrassment. one other related oink.

in congress between the cia and senate, so much of it seems to have to do with the fear of the release of the report that should have been released to the american people many moons ago to show enhanced interrogation torture in fact did not provide national that have beents preferred as a reason for church or -- torture to the american people. i think in that is the need to be skeptical. >> let me give you the context of what he is going to respond to. last march james clapper appear before a senate intelligence committee and was asked about collecting data on millions of americans. he said " not willingly." has actually written a letter about that. this gives me a little fried

actually. all of the institutions represented on my site regularly publish corrections about errors that occur. that does not mean their reporters are lying. i was part of the whole process. i was with the dni and i know full well he made a mistake. he knows full well he made a mistake. when he asked questions, he was thinking about a different kind of program. the point was he did not lie, he made a mistake. me immensely that people loosely throw alarmed -- throw around the term perjury where it would be perfectly fair to say made a misstatement or even misled the people but to accuse him of lying is both wrong and unjustified. he was thinking of the 702 program. hisou look at the rest of answer, he talks about

inadvertent, which makes clear he was thinking about the incidental collection of u.s. persons. >> before we -- morewant to make one statement. i agree and disagree about overclassification. i made a speech in which i talked at some length about that because it is a genuine problem. do notalso believe is i think the overclassification problem results in any substantial measure from a desire of people to prevent embarrassment or to avoid political consequences or anything like that. i think it is much more mundane. the pressures within the community to avoid risk. you never want to be the person responsible for compromise of source. i have never seen something like that, that was classified without any good reason just

because they did not want it to come out. >> let me put you on the spot if i could. the basic question that ran through the panel previously was the argument that the government often will say national security will be harmed. ,ell us how, specifically national security has been harmed by mr. snowden's revelations. >> i think it is important to break snowden's revelations down to two parts. there is a series of things that have been revealed about the nature of how we interpreted authorities. the manner in which we have overseen the authorities. generally the kinds of collections activities they played. as i said earlier, i would have wished we had found a way to get those discussions into the public. it is true the oversight

mechanisms that were set up i did knowin the open fully about these and approve these. i quarrel over the assumption the oversight is broken, it is just that people wish it had come to different answers than it did. there is a whole other series of disclosures that have taken place that go into specific cap invidious about the kinds of the kindse collect on of mechanisms we use. in particular, stories that have not distinguished at all between what we have the technical capability to do and what we are legally authorized to do and actually do. i know that glenn greenwald ridiculed this, but we have seen in ongoing intelligence that people who we very much want to track are taking note of these. it is very difficult for us to tell what we are not collecting anymore because by definition we

are not collecting it. the question in my mind that as a result of the specifics coming out, we will lose collection capabilities. as i can getncrete without revealing classified information myself. by that logic, any reporting on intelligence and intelligence methods scares off potential sources and should shut up about the entire subject. >> that is why i go back to the balancing process. thatn personal judgment is some of the stories that have come off that have focused on policy issues are ones where the press could in my mind appropriately make a judgment that the balance of national security and transparency warrants publishing the story. >> could i speak up as a footnote? believer in history.

i think probably everyone on this panel is. just to remember after the pentagon papers case in which president nixon and the solicitor general stood before the court and made the passionate argument that the publication of the pentagon papers harmed national security. , 10 years after he argued the case was asked to name a specific area in which publication of the papers have harmed national security. he admitted, which i think took , and said there had been no harm to national security. i do not know that in this case. i am not trying to do -- try to be predictive or arrogant but that is the issue. >> if you had a top-secret clearance, i would be glad to show you the intelligence cuts,

but you do not, so i can't. there is a certain element of you can either take what we say on faith or ignore it, but that is your call to make. we do not get to make that call. >> i never make the call to ignore. i would take it under consideration. lex i think we could have legitimate disagreement about what is in the public interest. think we could have legitimate disagreement about what is in the public interest. we will say actually it is an important matter of public interest and should disclose it. a second point. >> as a young reporter sitting i " the washington post" remember very clearly watching the director of the cia, casey, come to the newsroom and confirm with woodward and bradley about a story that would not have

happened without something very high drama. it turned out to be signal intelligence aboard submarines. that story was held. i am sure it is not the only time in the history of that happened. the notion that somehow the press throws - - >> i hope no one is hearing me as saying that. i am just saying i do not think press doesthink the not always have all the information we have and has a different set of institutional biases and it does publish things that in my judgment risk harm to national security. it is important to say the fact that we cannot say this and as a result of this disclosure, is not the right way to ask the question. we banned drunk driving.

it increases the risk of accidents. that does not mean that any particular drunk driver -- >> [inaudible] >> that does not mean any particular drunk driver causes an accident. in the same way we classify information because release of the information risks harm to national security. >> first of all, the nation will go for comment. jeremy skate hill who wrote blackwater and as a result, people within the national security establishment sources came to him because they were troubled by the privatization of warfare and by the lack of accountability, and out of that came bhis book. comment, seeor comment. we have never in the history of a nation withheld a story, but that speaks for a different kind of publication. i will point out the impact of the children. i think j mayer has written

about the freeze on sources. what that means about unfiltered leaks being the source of investigative reporting. carl bernstein has said he cannot do the watergate story today is those confidential sources did not have trust in his ability to protect him. i am curious because i think it putting aside, everything, if he had been tried in this country, i believe [inaudible] he could've been held or prosecuted. thoughts butjoe's what responsibilities as a news publication have to a source? the responsibility the news organization has with a source is to really live up to the word that is given by a journalist to a source. right now,ork times"

my colleague is in an excruciating position where in one of the seven leak investigation, criminal leak investigations that the obama administration has pursued, there is a subpoena involving he developedial for a book he wrote. unless the u.s. supreme court decides to intervene in that case, he is facing the very real to choosehaving between going to jail or giving information that leads to the disclosure of his source. made the pledge to protect his confidentiality. there you are. jim has said to me we have worked very closely together for years. inas very happy to join him boston a few weeks ago where he was given a major first

amendment award, and showing support for him at this time is very important, but he has told me he has been doing national security reporting in washington for decades. that the climate has never been like this or more difficult that it is right now. >> that eggs the question, and it was the theme of several the -- that begs question that was the theme of several other questions, national security reporters -- >> i do not see concrete evidence of that. who sees am the one the intelligence. >> she is going to sources. she thinks sources are freezing up. >> as she is saying that. that is actually not true. i pick up the paper every

day. single day. i read articles related to unnamed intelligence officials to senior officials and government officials. certainly does not look right to me as if sources are drying up. there will always be sources reluctant to talk. hayes on theversus way appear. one of the arguments the press makes is relations between the press and government have never been borst is an unprecedented flood of subpoenas to the press. somehow the press has managed to struggle on. if i could take a little historical perspective. one of the reasons there was no history of subpoenas or reporters for the first 50 or 60 years after the espionage act is because the press had a cozy relationship with the government. notyone knows they did

report on things. basically vietnam and watergate change that and the press adopted a much more adversarial tone. i happen to think that is good, but that is right. scariness -- is that a word> adversity is a two-way process. it is my personal opinion, jim rice and called me out on this, that people who leak classified information, to make crimes, if we can catch them, we should prosecute them and they ought to go to jail. >> do you agree jim rice and should be prosecuted? >> not revealing his sources. >> he is not being prosecuted. he is being subpoenaed to give evidence. to courts have determined this date that he does not have a privilege against getting that information. there was discussion of the media shield law, a law

president obama has endorsed. i will not speculate as to how that would have applied to his particular case. if there is a media shield law passed, and that is another thing that courts could do. there has never been a reporter prosecuted. i do not think there ever will be because every president is aware of the argument. i think that as a practical matter. it is very different in my mind to go after the people who are responsible for leaking the information. a series ofve been things, including a book to "the who made the" argument that the obama administration has been more anti-press than the nixon administration, and in fact, has chilled or frozen a lot of information coming out.

do you agree with that he asked him =-- with that? have theot sure i appropriate historical observation on that but i am leery of anyone being more anti-press or lust or anything like that. i am opposed to broad generalizations about a lot of things. in the case of stories, we are evaluating each one independently. we try to take into account the national security considerations and intelligence community generally has ordered the defense establishment has. we look at each one of these things. i realize they have an interest as well and we all have to come to independent decisions. role as being independent. the word adversary is not one i am drawn to. being independent, we make our own decisions. we are not collaborators automatically. we come to her independent

judgments about what we should do. i revised the part of the norm -- enormous hostility on part of the administration for the most hostile subjects we can deal him. we all come to our judgments. i do not know if they are more anti-press. i know from talking to reporters they do feel a chill. in mind we are all sitting here on her own free will and have not been incarcerated thankfully. perhaps more safe than any other country in the world. that is something that can be distinguished very quickly. >> you did a long piece more recently. whetheryour take as to you could be more aggressively

construed as anti-press? >> cultural and stier -- cultural and style and then actuality. his languagerms of and ease with the tribe known as reporters, he is way more ids and can speak a common language with for all kinds of reasons we know because his background is richard nixon. if you listen to the richard nixon tape, when the report comes up it is almost up there with blacks and jews. thro henry kissinger into the pot, two. some of this is generational. some of this is the craziness that was the nixon administration. if you walk the halls of the obama white house, at least when you are there, we have a heisenberg sensible in effect, it is a kind of ease. that one is this agency and so

on. proof in the pudding. i found many of the things you talked about with president obama. he has the cultural need and political need to express he knows what your side of the story is. on the one hand, he gives a great first amendment written university of chicago, not the conservative side, understanding of an editor and reporter cultural understanding of freedom of press. on the other hand, and he does that professorial turn. -- that's kind of turn. on the other hand it is pretty tough and pretty convincing.

it is one thing to be buddy buddy. what are the results? >> before we turn to the audience. >> mayor graham. grim.y are >> before we turned back to the audience, let me turn back to the title of the panel, where do we go from here? we have an adversarial relationship and everyone agrees on that. >> i think we need to find a new way to engage the national security challenges in the world. we should never have started a global war on terror. you do not wage war on terror. i think president obama is a in a metastasizing national security state. it has grown and grown and grown. also, in a culture it is the be-all, end-all. even lyndon johnson could not but -- could not sustain attacks for winding down vietnam.

i think we need to find a way to revive the oversight mechanisms, which i do think they're broken in the country. i think we need to look hard scaling back an overclassification creep and restore the balance that is terribly off-balance in these times. >> are you going to the same place that katrina is? >> not necessarily for the reason you think. i think i would rather focus more on the specifics of where we go from here between the relationship of media and the government. over the years there has been on and off a very useful set of informal conferences under the aspen institute where members of the media and government have gotten together and talked off the record for a couple of days arriveffort to try to not necessarily at a common

standing because generally speaking the press comes in and says we want you to tell us how we can get more classified information out of you and the government says we want youth to tell us how to get classified information but at least a common understanding of where we are coming from. adversarialto be an relationship, because it is a job of the press to find out things government that does -- the government does not wanted to find out. i do not mean that in the sense of political or avoiding embarrassment, but there are many things the government believes need to be kept secret in the national interest. there is a full recognition of the fact that the press will almost invariably balance that difference different than the government does. of question is, what kind privacy's can we set up to ensure that adversarial relationship is a productive

one, rather than destructive? of questions from the audience. raise your hand. questions? >> yes. alex jones from the insurance center at harvard. one of the things said that struck me was the comment that the political implications of hard cover much action in these situations is perhaps even a better restrained -- restraint on government and the shield law would be. after the pentagon papers, the supreme court will open the door andfor "the tiemes" others to be prosecuted. it cannot happen because of the nixon administration political impact. my question going forward is for example jim rise refuses to name names and goes to jail, what will be the

political and journalistic implications of that and the likely impact of that on journalism, on the issues on nsa and so forth? think it will obviously .ave a very unfortunate impact even though it is true as bob emphasized in earlier remarks that jim himself is not being prosecuted under a leak case, it inll creates an appearance the public that the job of reporting is being criminalized. i think that is a terrible thing and unhealthy thing for our society. wanted to pick up on something glenn greenwald said, which i think is important about the global impact of the snowden revelations and the change in

people's thinking around the world, the consciousness and how that may have more impact than legislative change or shield laws. i'm really, i would not discount, and i am not advocating or disaggregating -- disadvocating, that there might be a way of leaking for civil disobedience. that that is a way of upholding true values were being trampled and agencies they work in or trampling of the constitution. important to is remember that if jim rise and is held in contempt and goes to jail, he will not be the first reporter for who that will happen to. -- jim reisen. not clear to me this will have effect it hasc been attributed to hear. on katrina's prediction, i sure hope it is not so. >> we will leave this program at this point to go live to the

white house for a statement from president obama. express onwant to behalf of the american people our deepest condolences to the republic of korea and the families of those who have seen a loved one lost in the ferry sinking in the past couple of days. obviously information is still coming in. we know many of the victims of this terrible tragedy were students. american navy personnel and marines have been on the scene helping with search and rescue. one of our closest allies, our commitment to south korea is unwavering in good times and in bad him and that is something all underscore during my visit next week. before i take questions, i would also like to say a few words about how the affordable care act is now covering more people

at less cost than most would have predicted a few months ago. the first open enrollment period under the law and did a little over two weeks ago tom and does more data comes in, we now know the number of americans who have insurancefor private in the marketplaces has grown to 8 million people. 8 million people. 35% of people who enrolled through the federal marketplace are under the age of 35. all told, independent experts now estimate millions of americans who were uninsured have gained coverage this year with millions more to come next year and the year after. we have also seen signs the affordable care act is bringing economic security to more americans. the newest law added transparency and competition to the individual market. folks who bought insurance on their own.

while we would suspect that premiums will keep rising as they have for decades, we also know since the law took effect, health care spending has risen more slowly than at any time in the past 50 years. in a decade before the insurance care act, rose to almost eight percent per year. last year grew at half that. it has nearly stopped growing, the life of the medicare trust fund extended by 10 years. the independent congressional budget office expects premiums for plans in the marketplace to be 15% lower than originally predict it. add up more money to families can spend at businesses. more businesses can spend hiring workers. the cbo now says the affordable care act will be cheaper than recently projected. lower cost from cover revisions will shrink deficits by an extra

billion dollars. the bottom line is, under the affordable care act, the share of americans with insurance is up, the growth of health-care cost is down, hundreds of millions of americans who are ready have insurance now have new benefits and protections from capsntative care on your care. no american with a pre-existing condition like asthma or cancer can be denied coverage. no woman can be charged more just for being a woman. those days are over. this thing is working. i have said before this law will not solve all of the problems in the health care system. we know we have more work to do. facte now know for repealing the affordable care act would increase the deficit, raise premiums for millions of americans and take insurance way for millions more -- and give

insurance to millions more. this strange find -- it's strange the republican position is still stuck in the same place it has always been. they still cannot bring themselves to admit the affordable care act is working. they said no one would sign up. they were wrong about that. they said it would be unaffordable for the country. they were wrong about that. they have no alternative answer for millions of americans with pre-existing conditions who would be denied coverage again. where every woman who would be charged more for just he and the woman. i know every american will not agree with this law, but i think we can agree it is well past time to move on as a country and refocus our energy on the issues that the american people are most concerned about, and that continues to be the economy. the endless fruitless repeal efforts, at a cost.

votes republicans have taken to repeal the law could have been 50 votes to make jobs like infrastructure and innovation or 50 votes to make it easier for middle-class families to send kids to college or 50 votes to raise the minimum or restore unemployment insurance that they let expire for folks working hard to find a new job. the point is the repeal debate is and should be overt. i know it is working and the american people do not want to spend the next 2.5 years fighting the settled report -- political battles of the next five years. to restore the founding printable opportunity and that is what i intend to keep doing him as long as i am in this office. with that, i will take some westerns. let's see who we got. lahleen hennessey of "the

times." caller: > >> it sounds like there have been developed in the ukraine talks in geneva. i was wondering if you could talk about your level of confidence in what the agreement is and how you think russia will follow through given the remarks from president whom this morning . >> i do not think we can be sure of anything at this point. i think there is a prospect diplomacy way -- may de-escalate the situation and we may be able to move towards what has always been our goal, which is letting ukrainians make their own decisions about their own lives. there was a meeting in geneva represented as the ukrainian government, russian government, the eu, as well as the united states. lengthy, vigorous conversation. my understanding is the ukrainian prime minister gave a detailed and thorough presentation about the reforms

they intend to introduce, including reforms that provide for ukrainians that live in eastern and southern be fullythat they will represented, but their rights will be protected, that russian speakers and natives and ukraine -- in ukraine will have the full protection of the law , and my understanding, based on what i have heard, is that there was an egg knowledge meant within the meeting that the ukrainian government in kiev had gone out of its way to address the range of concerns that may have existed in southern and eastern ukraine. publicas a promising statement that indicated the need to disarm all irregular and militias and groups that had been occupying

buildings. there was an offer of amnesty to those who would willingly lay down their arms come back to it the buildings, so that the law and order could be restored in eastern and southern ukraine. signedsian side on -- onto the statement. the question now becomes, what will in fact they use the influence they have exerted in a to restore order so that ukrainians can carry out an election, move forward with the decentralization reforms they have proposed, stabilize and start getting back on the path of growth and democracy. and that the sovereignty will be respected. we will not know whether in fact there is follow through on the statements for several days. so today i spoke with chancellor merkel. later on today i will speak to david cameron. we will be consulting with european allies ove.

we have putt week in place additional consequences we can impose on the russians if we do not see actual improvement of the situation on the grounds, and we are courting mating now with european allies. my hope is that we actually do see follow-through over the next several days, but i do not think , given past performance, that we can count on that. we have to be prepared to potentially respond to what continues to be efforts of interference by the russians in eastern and southern ukraine. if in fact we do see that willts, then obviously be a positive. in the meantime, we will continue to make sure we help the ukrainian government working with the imf and others to stabilize the economy and to start reforming it. we will continue to work with nato allies to make sure they

are assured we will meet the article five obligations, and that they are secure. and as i have said before, i think i had an interview with the major yesterday in which i mentioned, this whole exercise by the russians is not good for russia either. there are a number of articles today integrating -- indicating the degree to which i'm economy that was artie stuck in the mud is further deteriorating because of actions. in my conversations with president putin, i have emphasized the same thing, that we have no desire to see further progression of the american economy but we will continue to uphold the basic principle and sovereignty of all countries and there is a way for you ukraine to be independent, and have

positive relationships at the with both european neighbors and russian neighbors. that is our primary concern. >> the house majority leader eric cantor said or explained that you have not learned how to work with them and angry you are attacking the gop on back of movement on immigration reform. i was wondering how you respond t? that tac whereas also wondering you have hunger strikes across the nation and whether you can make an announcement in the coming weeks to expand the relief for the undocumented. thank you. >> i actually had a president -- pleasant

conversation. i did. you are always surprised by the mismatch between press releases and pecans bash conversations. i wished him a happy passover. what i said to him privately is what i will say publicly, which is their bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform. it would stream the in dash strengthen the economy, help with security, and would provide relief to families who have lived here for years and to have children and family members who are u.s. citizens. act and congress should right now what is holding us back is house republican leadership not willing to go ahead and let the process move forward.

so it was a pretty friendly conversation. think in his press release come i gather he was referring to the observation that was made a day earlier that it had now been a year since the senate have passed a strong bipartisan and although we have heard a lot of talk about the house republicans being interested in doing something, nothing had happened yet. and suggesting we need urgency here. i still feel the same way. i know there are republicans in the house, and in the senate, who know this is the right thing to do. know it is hard politics for republicans. because there are some in the base that are very opposed to this. is there i also know are families all across the

are experiencing great hardship and pain because this is not getting resolved. i also know there are businesses across the country that could be growing even faster. that's our deficits could be coming down faster. we would have more customers in our shops, if we get this thing resolved. we know what the right thing to do is. it is a matter of political will. not any longer a matter of policy. i will encourage them to get this done. as far as our actions, and jeh johnson, new head of the department of homeland security has been talking to everybody. law enforcement, immigrant thoroughoups to do a review of the approach towards enforcement tom and we are doing

that in consultation with democrats and republicans and with any interested party. i do think that the system we have right now is open. i am not alone in that opinion. the only way to truly fix it is through congressional action. we have artie tried to take as many administrative step as we could. tried to already take as many administrative steps as we could to make it more consistent with common sense and more consistent with attitudecan people's which we should not be in the business of tearing families apart that are otherwise law-abiding. i will not get into timing right now, because mr. johnson will go ahead and do that review. >> so regarding the affordable care act -- >> let's talk about that. [laughter]

>> i think everyone agrees it , but democrats have been reluctant in congress to reopen the conversation, and republicans have been more than happy to reopen conversations in a different way. now that you say it is here to stay in so many people have signed up, in this environment isn't possible to do the kinds of corrections that the business community and many others would like to see through small, technical corrections? >> it is absolutely possible but room -- will require a change in attitude on the part of the republicans. i have always said from the outset that on any large piece of legislation like this there are going to be things that need to be improved. i said that i think the day i signed the bill. has beenthink there any hesitation on our part to consider ideas that would actually improve the

legislation. if challenge we have is that you have certain members in the republican party whose view is making it work better is a , then it iso me hard in that environment to actually get it done. party hase that their gone through the stages of grief, anger, denial, and all that stuff. we are not at acceptance yet. but at some point, my assumption is there will not be an interest to figure out how to make this work in the best way possible. we have 8 million people signed up. through the exchanges. that does not include the 3 million young people who are able to stay on the parents

plan. it does not include the 3 million people who benefited from expansions to medicaid. so if my math is correct, but it's 14 million. another 5 million people who have signed up outside the market faces that are part of the different insurance pool. so we have a sizable part of the u.s. population now better in the first -- but for the first time in many cases in a position to enjoy the financial security of health insurance. i am meeting them as i am on the road. i saw a woman yesterday, young woman, maybe 34 with her mom and dad come in two small kids and self-employed husband and diagnosed with breast cancer and this is not an abstraction to her. she is saving her home and business. she is saving her parents home

potentially because she has self -- help insurance, which he just could not afford. the question now becomes come if in fact this is working for a lot of people but still improvements to make, why are we still having a conversation about repealing the whole thing on and why are we having folks say that any efforts to improve it are somehow handing obama a victory ? if this is the primary agenda item in the republican political platform. here is what i know. the american people would much rather see us talk about jobs, would much rather see us talk about high college costs,