parliament. the house of commons across the century has never expected to be popular. and, indeed, it should not cost popularity, but the work it does in calling governments to account and its role as a crucible of ideas and challenge deserves to be better known, better understood and so properly valued. so, too, does the work of individual members, the workings of the constituents, but often as the last resort of the homeless and hopeless, the people whom society has let down. this is a worthy calling and should be properly acknowledged and appreciated. this house is the precious center of our parliamentary democracy. and with all my heart i wish it well. yours sincerely, robert rogers. >> here, here.

>> sundays at 8:00, a collection of interviews with stome of the nation's top story tellers. >> at the beginning of the war, you're afraid of holding the gun. when we went to the first battle and we fought and i shot somebody, killed somebody, it does something to you that so you start to tend to yourself. it's very difficult in the

beginning but after time went on it became normalized ch. this is what happens if you normalize the situation so you can actually live through it. because if you don't you ctually die. >> from this morning's "washington journal" a conversation now with the author of the big snoop, an esace about the national security agency's surveillance programs. okseller. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is stuart lor from the brookings institution. he is the author of a recent essay called "the big scoop here: welcome. chirico -- scoop

"the big scoop." welcome. this is the ultimate securitynational story. when it came up i was fascinated with it from the start. when brookings asked me to write this essay i thought it was a great opportunity. i have to admit it was a little humbling. this is the most common. , most difficult, most technical stuff i ever tried to understand. i would like to think i am pretty good at understanding stuff like that. the technology is mind-boggling. the law is incredibly complicated. there's still a lot i don't understand but i hope i understand enough to have written a general introduction for the general reader. you: one of the things talked about was this was introduced to us in mass by edward snowden. guest: edward snowden is what

the story has been about or his revelations are what the story has been about. it had is hard to believe it has been almost a year since his leaks started. it has rocked the entire intelligence establishment, it has rocked the security establishment. .e is a hero, he is a traitor this essay doesn't try to tell you so much whether he is a hero or traitor, it tries to look into the consequence of what he has disclosed and how that bears on the future and whether nsa programs are something we should be afraid of or overprotected by whor be protected by? host: are these people, what are you looking to get from them? guest: i was fortunate to get these four. looking through the eyes of these four might be a good way to get into technical things

where they can skip a lot of the translation. senator dianne feinstein is chair of the senate intelligence committee and a great defender of the nsa. she is critical sometimes but by and large a great defender on one hand. and in the greatest attractor is senator ron wyden of oregon, who was also on the intelligence committee. jule brenner, a former nsa inspector general and highly respected commentator and analyst. jamil jaffer is a leading aclu lawyer. these people are all very impressive. they disagree fundamentally about many things but it is hard not to respect each of them when you listen to them. what they say the nsa and

its practices are still needed? they think a lot of the practices are unconstitutional or dangerous or bad for our privacy or not helpful to national security. jule brenner and senator feinstein would disagree on all of those points. host: as far as your conversation with them -- when you take a look at specific programs what did you talk about and what are the concerns he -- what are the concerns? leaked aowden has hundred programs at least. the ones that generated the most controversy is the metadata program, where the nsa has been secretly collecting the phone records of basically all americans all the time.

it turns out not quite all. they are missing the cell phone records. the idea is they are not listening to your phone calls but their computers no everybody you are calling. who you are calling, when you are calling, where you roughly were when you talked to them. when they for that is have a call: from someone they think is a foreign terrorist, then they want to know everyone i'm talking to, everyone i have been talking to to see if i am part of a terrorist network to see if some of those connections might connect to other terrorists and they may be able to break a plot early on. that has been hugely controversial because it has been pointed out by the civil libertarian that if the governor

-- the government abuses these powers they can learn a great deal about us that we might not want publicly known. are defenders who say it is very well controlled, it has been authorized and supervised by the president, the executive branch, by the foreign intelligence surveillance court, and by the congress with the oversight committee -- with the intelligence committee doing oversight. the argument goes back and forth on that. that program is being reduced somewhat. program involves eavesdropping on foreign internet communications and internet phone calls. that is a massive program where most of the eavesdropping is on foreigners. traditionally there has been no legal restrictions on that. when they are talking to americans it gets very complicated. the nsa wants to

know if a foreign intelligence target is plotting with -- plotting something with americans. there are lots of concern that has potential of invading privacy. one thing that is pretty clear, nsa -- no hint of a violation of law along the -- of those lines have come up in decades. is always that tug-of-war between preserving liberty and privacy and things like that but also maintaining the need of the nsa to get information for security purposes. there has always been a tug-of-war with that. these dropping type

spying, that is becoming more and more of an important part of our defense network. with an operation like al qaeda, it is very difficult to get human agents inside. we probably don't have anybody inside al qaeda working for the cia. we have people in russia probably doing that. people in china. it is very difficult to penetrate

>> the head of the u.s. air force you can see his remarks on -span at 11:15 a.m. in the afternoon, i discussion on russia intervention. response and the role of nato is a live from the center for strategic and international studies. you can see it at 130 p.m. eastern on monday afternoon on c-span. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings events for washington directly to you putting you into the room at hearings and events and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industries.

we were created by the cable tv industry and brought as a public service. watch us in hd. >> the supreme court -- the case is riley v. california. was pulledvid riley over for driving with expired tags. police officers searched his phone without a warrant and information from the phone was used to convict him of several felonies. this is one hour. stored on smart phones. this is an hour. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case , riley v. california. mr. fisher? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: this case involves applying the core protection of the fourth amendment to a new factual circumstance.

it has always been the case that an occasion of an arrest did not give the police officers authority to search through the private papers and the drawers and bureaus and cabinets of somebody's house, and that protection should not evaporate more than years after the founding because we have the technological development of smartphones that have resulted in people carrying that information in their pockets. >> just just to test the principle for why the police ca search and seize some some objects. consider a gun. the arrestee has a gun on his person and the police take the gun. is part of the reason for that seizure to obtain evidence of the crime or is it just for the safety of the officer and the safety of the community? >> well, what this court said in robinson at page is the reason

supporting the authority for a search incident to arrest are the two chimel factors, which are gathering evidence to prevent its destruction, and officer's safety. now >> what about gathering evidence in order to make the case? for instance, with the gun, could they take fingerprints? the the gun is in the police station where the arrestee is being booked. a, could they take fingerprints? b, could they copy the serial number? c, could they see how many shells were left in the chamber? they obviously have to empty it for safety purposes. all for the purpose of building the case, of of obtaining evidence? >> yes, of course that's done every day. once the gun is in the police the police department's lawful possession, i think edwards says that they can do all that. >> so so if if the proposition then, if the principle then is that some objects that are obtained from the arrestee can be examined in order to build the state's case, is that at least a beginning premise that we can accept in your case, although, obviously, there

are problems of the extent and intrusiveness of the search that are are your case, but not in the gun hypothetical. >> well, justice kennedy, the court has never described that as one of the things. if you want to think about this case the way you thought about the automobile search in gant, it would be a beginning premise; but i think you're right, that even if that were a beginning premise , it would be only that, a beginning. in footnote in edwards, this court said that any search incident to arrest still has to satisfy the fourth amendment's general general reasonableness. >> i think you're right that gant is probably the best statement in support of the principle that i've i've suggested, and then you might say, well, that's limited to automobiles >> right. >> and then we're back where we started. things to understand if you want gant, because both in terms of its history and its modern application, it's dramatically different from what we have here.

>> well, mr. fisher, before we do that, have you been accurate in what you said about robinson and about the court's cases? in weeks, which was quoted in robinson, the court said: "the right, always recognized under english and american law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. is that historically inaccurate? do you want us to repudiate that? >> no, your honor. what weeks said, you quoted it, fruits and instrumentalities of the crime have always been something that could be seized from a person. now, weeks, of course, as this court said in robinson itself, was dicta. and there was that historical authority to take fruits and evidence i'm sorry fruits and instrumentalities of the crime. which did it say? >> did it say instrumentalities or evidence?

>> weeks used because justice alito said evidence. you you changed it to instrumentality. is one of you wrong? >>weeks uses the word "evidence, " but, justice scalia, because it was not at issue in that case, the the bishop treatise that you cited in your thornton concurrence talks about tools and instrumentalities. smartphones do present difficult problems.