from the courts. the one time it was touched upon , thecourt was in 1980's prosecution on president ronald reagan. an employee who was prosecuted for leaking information to her british magazine. he raised a first amendment defense and others. when i got up on an appeal on the fourth circuit, the government's position is the espionage act is strict liability and he argued there has to be a public defense. the court said, without directly articulating what the first amendment defense was, at least on the fast, we do not think this would be inconsistent to the first amendment. they pointed to the fact this was a knowing violation, that he knew the harm that would happen to the nice if and a number of things. i think there is some level of protection even for a leaker that would require journalists,

that's some bad intents and other knowledge that might not be evident from the face of the statute. >> if i can answer your question, which is, is there some sort of defense for the leaker, the answer is, no. we would like the answer to be different. the answer is no under current law. if you have current access to classified information, you're not allowed to disclose it and it is a crime if you do. class you're going to take that argument to the court? clarifier asking what statute says it is a crime. >> i do not have a citation. all right. good luck with that. the point about the only route to disclosure to the press, i

think is somewhat misstated. mr. snowden's other advisors and supporters are all like, you cannot go to an inspector general because they are a joke. they are not. you cannot go to congress because congress is a joke. no, it is not. there are other routes to disclosure. it is worth mentioning one isson it was disclosed because there was an internal investigation and the army, which was not made up entirely of tortures and criminals. there were a lot of people within the army appalled at what went on. they were investigating himself. the idea the press is the only is not played out. >> they're different. it is one thing where it occurs, but i think most people in the system were not aware of that they would reveal crimes occurred. therefore, what is needed to bring it to an investigator, internal or in congress, i do

the snowden's situation as different, where the regime expose was one the system deemed entirely legal. he cannot exactly go to congress and say, i am here to report the system of secret surveillance you authorized. he could not go to the head of his agency and say, would like to report you what you're doing every day and not telling the american people. there are situations those channels may not work. it does not mean the leaks are legitimate. to go and say, i wish i could tell the american people this but i cannot, that seems implausible. >> we're almost out of time. i would like to end with a lightning round. we have mostly been talking about old cases we love, that fresh lawyers love to talk about. the pentagon papers. 5-4, we almost got our constitutional privilege. what do you think the current

supreme court might do with these questions? might they recognize their lives for snowden, might they rule in favor of jim? >> no. [laughter] adam is highly familiar with the current supreme court. i think the recognition of a reporter's privilege is less likely today than it was in 1973. theink this is a court that first to press gives judgment in most cases and the best thing for the press is to try to keep the decision away from this court. unfortunately, it all arises in the post 9/11 era, which makes it much more difficult, that you only have to look at the case that did not involve the press, which involved therial support to see supreme court said did not involve first amendment issues, that you can see they may not

take that friendly and approach -- an approach to anything against the cause of national security. >> in the real world, jeffrey's judgment is probably a good one. this is a court you would probably want to keep that case away from. i think the answer is probably no. whether you could convince this court to recognize a common law privilege as the just is urged, i think is an open question. eyed optimist, but you can make an argument to the court along the lines of, if you do not recognize the privilege, all you're saying is you are enhancing executive power and putting it exclusively in the hand of the power control over a whole fear of -- information. there is a role for judges to play involving these important

issues and therefore you should read nice a spy case privilege, otherwise you have no role in future and you might get someone to coalesce around that. >> you are exactly right. the only chance to get what we would consider a good rolling is to appeal to the institutional pride of the constitutional role and show the ways in which it ought to be fed up with the deceits of the security they. the first guantanamo case, this court would have no jurisdiction in one, no -- in guantánamo. was in the supreme court last year in a challenge to what we consider to be an unconstitutional nsa surveillance program. the government essentially said standing is, the based on speculation, not on our actions. the court said the claims of standing are abstract.

they have no plausible claim they or their clients or anyone subjected to this. a few months later, we had the snowden revelation. see thate court will by deferring to the government excessively, the court is writing itself out. >> thank you. please join me in thanking this panel. [applause] a great start to what i know will be a great day. i think bob will now join us. >>we just heard mentioned during that conversation the justice. later today, we will bring a conversation with her about her

life and career when she spoke at georgetown university later this month. you can listen to her remarks. and tomorrow, we will hear from michael green. you will preview president obama's trip to asia. then, kaiser health news conversation -- corresponded with the how the hell industry is responding to the affordable care act. and the national journal o response to those involved in renewable fuels. yourf that, along with phone calls, facebook comments, and twitter comments. starting right here on c-span. also monday, we will hear from a supreme court justice on human rights during a discussion also hosted by georgetown university as well as the center for the rule of law. that will be live at 4:00 eastern here on c-span.

>> cryptology is an ancient art that goes back to the beginning of human history. we do not quite go back that far but we do have interesting artifacts that help people understand just how long people have been making and breaking and have a need for cryptology. when we talk about the united states, it is important to note the making and breaking of codes has been a part of america even before we gained our independence. most precious artifacts is referred to as the jefferson device. truth in advertising, it is very we do not havete any definitive, conclusive evidence that this particular device along to thomas jefferson. but there are interesting facts about it. one, the device was found in an antique store very close to monticello. it appears to have the ability french and english.

jefferson was an ambassador of france. the most telling point was there is a drawing of a device there is similar to this in jefferson's private papers. even so, we cannot say for so -- for sure jefferson owned it. we can say this is a nice -- an excellent example of how people use the national cryptologic museum, making and breaking secret codes, later today the clock and 10:00 eastern, part of 3.erican history tv on c-span >> next we will hear from 10 murphy on his bill to prior chores -- prioritize the needs of psychiatric agents. it would address that shortages and mental health care agencies. he was joined by other advocates at the american enterprise institute where they spoke for about 1.5 hours.