>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin with the dramatic news today. the editor of the "new york times" has been replaced, and we talked to dylan byers of politico who broke the story. >> what becomes clearly needed if you listen to what sales berger said it needed a structure. clearly there was something not working out with abramson either in general or with a specific issue so they are trying to right that course and bring it under the new executive editor. >> rose: we continue with glenn greenward of edward snowden fame. edward snowden the nsa and the u.s. surveillance state. >> i think if you look at the surveillance abuses of the past, the principle question has always been on whom is the government spying domestically and for what reasons, which who

are their targets. and that's the missing part of the puzzle in terms of the public reporting taking place. >> rose: who the target are. >> who specifically are the target domestically, u.s. citizens, domestic persons inside the united states. the investigation we're currently working on the and when the reporting we're doing is to enter that question in a very comprehensive way. >> rose: we conclude this evening with writer christopher buckley. >> i was once speaking at a civic event in ohio. they're very nice. they're much nicer than we are in the east, although they're very nice in the carolinas. and it was one of those 11:00 in the morning things. the audience, a civic auditorium of a thousand blue-haired ladies and silver-haired ladies. my host, who was a sweet sweet

person introduced me as a satryist. >> rose: byers, greenwald and buckley when we continue. >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with this story. the "new york times" announced earlier today that executive editor jill abramson would be replaced. publisher arthur sulzberger informed him. joining me now from washington dylan byers of politico, he broke today's news after covering the turbulence at the times all year, i am please to do have him here on this program. dylan, tell me about what happened and why this decision was made. >> sure. it was very sudden, and because

of that thing we don't have all of the answers yet. what arthur sulz burger said it had nothing to do with the quality of the paper under her tenure. of course a year auto we reported there were some frustrations among members of the staff request her leadership they found her to be combative in some cases and in some cases condescending. we don't how much of a role that played. she also had struggles with the time ceo mark thompson who had taken a more aggressive approach to handling editorial operations in the news room than in the most. but we still don't have the pull answers as to why she left. >> rose: trace for me because you've been covering this story and you were clearly the one to break this story. what's been going on at the "new york times" over the last year. >> there's been, i mean it's obviously a great period of change at the times for any paper. the times has been doing well in terms of its digital operation. it's obviously suffered in terms

of print revenues. it had to do around buy-outs which jill oversaw. jill was not more present although those buy outs were going on. it's a term of turbulence and a period of turbulence for legacy media orgainizations. i think what the times needed, what the times clearly needed if you listen to what salz berger said today it needed a more concrete leadership structure. clearly there was something not working out with abramson either in general or with a specific issue and so they're trying to sort of right that course, right that ship and bring some stability in the news room under dean baquet the new editor. >> rose: she was not present in the meeting which the publisher announced the change. >> which is very strange because when the sort of torch is passed from one leader to another, you have both of those people in the news room at the same time. that was not the case this time. she put out a statement saying she enjoyed her time as

executive editor and that was bit. it was very terse. and she was not there when sulzberger made the statement in the news room. >> rose: did anybody say like maybe at an earlier time there was sexism here. >> there are charges of sexism regarding the sort of criticism that she was a combative leader she can be condescending. certainly criticisms when we reported on this year ago those criticisms never leveed against a male editor. there are concerns those complaints might have been legitimate. >> rose: there's also this. the notion that mark thompson played a role, former head of the bbc, a man who had some controversial issues that he had to go back and testify some role there was calculated about that there was conflict between him and jill abramson. >> sure. of course there was a report a few months back that jill

abramson chafe chafe was the word at the time mark them had come in and made a lot of the decisions that were usually under the jurisdiction of the executive editor. he had plans what the times was going to do in video and digital in some ways that the business strategy would affect the editorial strategy. for jill abramson who spent decades at the time, obviously has a long career in newspaper journalism. it was very hard for her to see this sort of infringement of the business side into the editorial structure. >> rose: what's the relationship between dean baquet and jill abramson. >> well it's a tough one to figure out. i mean publicly they have spoken supportively of one another. we certainly know that there were some very tense disagreements between them in the news room. as we reported last year, there was one meeting that got so contentious that dean baquet walked out of jill abramson's office and punched a hole in the wall at the "new york times" headquarters. so clearly it was up and down.

they managed to sort of weather whatever that relationship was and get through it and produce what is still a great product. but i don't think they were you know hanging out on the weekends. >> rose: yes. they weren't partying together. it is the notion, though, that he, my impression from people who know him that he's a very popular manager. >> he's very popular man within the times news room. if abramson suffered from this view she was sort of cold and unfortunatable dean certainly loved to be the sort of guy who everyone in the news room liked. morale in the news room was something that was very important to him and that he let people know was very important to him in a way that jill abramson clearly did not. and i think that won him over a lot of fans in the news room. >> rose: it's fair to say everyone was surprised by this except the people who had made the decision and then came down to announce it? >> my guess and it's just speculation is that everyone with the exception and

sulzberger, abramson and deyet. >> rose: congratulations on breaking a huge story. >> thank you so much charlie. >> rose: we'll be right back, stay with us. >> rose: glenn green walled is here. he's an investigative journalist reporting for the guardian on the nsa political program been recognized as a pulitzer prize for public service. the story is by classified documents leaked by former nsa contractor edward snowden considered a big intelligence breach in american history. the disclosures have unleashed a national debate about the right balance between our security and our civil liberties. greenwald recounts his story of the revelations in the new book, it is called no place to hide, edward snowden, the nsa and the u.s. surveillance state. i'm pleased to have glenn greenwald at this table for the first time. welcome. >> great to be here. >> rose: let's start with the title no place to hide comes from the investigating committee. >> the famous church committee of the mid 1970's. i discovered when surveillance

apparatuses are invested in the u.s. government without oversight or transparenty will be abused. what he is he at the time nobody knew this capability has been amassed. the mandate of the nsa was never spied demonstrateally. if it ever got turned against the american people there's no place to hide. it's come to be that the nsa does direct itself both at foreign nationals and the american population. >> rose: do you believe that these disclosures have changed the nsa? >> they certainly change the debate surrounding the nsa. i believe they're going to change the authorities that the nsa has as a result of congress and i think that it has made the nsa for the first types since at least the september 11 attacks questions whether or not because it has the capability to do something means it ought to do it. >> rose: do you think it's changed the attitude of the president. >> i do. i think there's a serious question about the extent to which president obama even knew

about the nsa's reach when merkel was to be a primary target of the agency the whitehouse was adamant he had no idea there was this level of personalized surveillance against allied leaders. >> rose: did you find that surprising that he did not know. >> i wouldn't find it surprising he didn't know at the granular level every target that the nsa chooses. it certainly must be the case after five years in office he had a pretty good sense of the reach of the nsa. >> rose: at some point, you have to say how did you get that. >> there has to be all sorts of indications in every presidential daily briefing there's a very wide reach of the nsa. certainly far wider than he would have known as a senator not on the intelligence committee. >> rose: do you think it's changed the opinion of the american public. >> i know it has. one of the most extraordinary polling results to me since we started doing the reporting and frankly one of the most gratifying is that every year since 9/11 has asked americans do you fear more the threat of

foreign terrorists or the threat of government to your rights. ever since 9/11 overwhelm the americans i fear more the threat of terrorism. for the first time ever since 9/11 since 2013 it's radical i fear more of the threats to the right by the government. >> rose: you believe that's because of these disclosures. >> it certainly has to be. it's a radical sudden immediate shift in the wake of the snowden disclosures. >> rose: are you certain that no one had been either arrested or killed because of these disclosures. >> i'll tell you why. we have as everybody knows many tens of thousands of documents that were given to us by edward snowden. we've had them now for almost a year, a very small percentage of those documents have actually been published. the reason is because before we publish something we left them with huge numbers of editors and security reporters. we talked to the government, we talked to lawyers to make certain --

>> rose: are you talking about government meaning. >> i don't personally because i'm not a big fan of that process because the editors go to the government and say here's what we tend to public. >> rose: sort of like a guardian at "the washington post" would do that. >> or all the porn media have required -- >> rose: required by you or required by their own principals. >> nobody has resisted but it's something that i insist upon before -- >> rose: check this out with the government. >> make sure we go to the government tell them what it is you intend to publish and let them make their case to you and therefore to me about why they think these things shouldn't be published. >> rose: you decide based on their answers whether you go ahead and publish. they say please don't publish this, do this or do that you make your own decision based on what they tell you. >> overwhelmingly we have gone forward and published. there's a big criticism, it isn't heard much but we haven't published enough. i find that criticism more valid than what we publish too much. >> rose: i'll come back to that. when you look at the stuff you have published do you know it

has damaged u.s. security interest? >> no. >> rose: under those circumstances in terms of means and methods have been disclosed that would harm the intelligence gathering that might be legitimate in terms of america's national security. >> i absolutely believe it has not and there's been zero evidence presented by anyone that it has. >> rose: there have been lots of people from the national security who has stepped forward and says it has. >> the thing about that -- >> rose: that's why you're on that case. >> the reason why that doesn't move me when you look at every case of unwanted transparency where light has been going back to the -- the government says the same thing in every single case this transparency will cause blood on people's hands, cause people to die and cause security it's never with any specificity. it's a script from which they read. >> rose: you think people who say that are lying or intentionally want to deceive in order to shut it down

surveillance or limits. >> i think it's both. it's not a conspiracy theory. i think one of the ideas the principals of the founding is that power that's exercised without transparency will be abused. but i also think the national security state believes that unless everything it's doing is kept secret, it will be less effective what they do and that will in turn result in security. i believe they genuinely believe that. >> rose: you got to have some kind of, everything cannot be transparent in national security operation. >> right. which is why a small percentage of the documents have been published. so we certainly recognize that there's legitimate secrecy. the broad contours of what the government is doing certainly have to be known to a population to have a healthy thrive in democracy even though specific programs are toxic or targets are legitimately kept secret. >> rose: how do you choose what you release. >> we go through the documents luke for significant stories talk with experts and begin the reporting process and when they're ready to be published we

publish them instantly. >> rose: when they're ready to be published meaning what. >> whatever gaps there are we fill in with extra reporting. we consulted with experts and we're convinced by talking to our lawyers and after talking to the government that we can safely and responsibly publish them. >> rose: i quoted with your book with the president asking what the balance is. what's i don't remember definition where the balance is? >> you know, to me there's a great and, sighting aspect to that question which is we can look to what we did in the 50, 60's, 70's and 80 where the cold war had these missiles pointed, there were terrorists groups and the ira, pla and hamas. is it important that the government is able to eavesdrop at times but before they do that, they need to go to a court and present evidence that the person on whom they want to eavesdrop has actually done something that merits the surveillance. not this indiscriminate suspicion master surveillance but very targeted. >> rose: is that --

>> it's not just that. the government collects billions of calls and e-mails every single day. they collect so much of the content of communications around the world that they can't even store it all physically even though huge amounts of data can be stored on a small thumb drive. >> rose: looking at what you talked about today is the founding when you hear it is that the disclosure from you, i think, about how routers and things being shipped over seas, repackaged with a security device inside. >> back door. the amazing thing about this charlie and that's why i feel the journalism we have done is in the public interest because for many years the government has been warning the world that the chinese do that to the products of chinese companies. don't buy routers and surfers and switches from chinese because the chinese government goes into the products of back doors and the whole time the nsa is doing exactly that. and when you have a government that's misleading its people to that extent, i do think

democraty becomes peril and the role of journalists to make people know that. >> rose: you don't necessarily occupy the high ground here. >> right. it's certainly something that i think the american people have the right to know if they're being told by the government the chinese are evil doing these things when the u.s. government itself is doing these thing. >> rose: here's a question, does everybody do it. >> not everybody. in fact -- >> rose: nobody's capable of doing it does it. >> nobody surveils the internet and world communication to the extent -- >> rose: to the extent that definition may be competence. in other words, you do it because you know how to do it. others might do it and they do it in part. it might do more if they had -- >> nobody thinks that spying in and of itself in all its manifestations and permutations is legitimate. spying has always existed between states and always will. >> rose: is there any between any countries. >> if they recognize legitimate targets, military officials,

heads of foreign state, there would never have been an edward snowden there would be no reporting, there would be no controversy. it's the indiscriminate nature. the goal of the nsa has made themself describe it as collect it all. >> rose: exactly. in terms of your own reporting, is that exactly the issue for you is the catch all. it is the indiscriminate all that is the most offensive thing that here you disclose in this book as you tell us the story. >> i think that is absolutely the most significant part of the story is the ubiquitousness of it, the limitlessness of the nsa's institutional aspiration to turn the internet and all form of digital communication into a field where there is no privacy. literally it's not an exaggeration it's definitionly the case if you subject all communication to their surveillance that privacy ceass to exist. >> rose: how did you first meet edward snowden. >> he contacted me -- >> rose: you were a reporter,

an investigative reporter reporting for various orgainizations. >> yes is i was principallably was at the time writing for the guardian. i had written about civil liberties and surveillance for a long time because i got into political journalism as a constitutional lawyer interested in these bush executive power theories that were adopted in the link of 9/11. at the time i was writing for the guardian. i wrote a book in 2006 the nsa scandal at that time which was much more limited it was about telephone calls. and so edward snowed -- snowden was a reader of mine and decided i was a person whom he wanted to work on a story. >> rose: what was it about you that made him decide that. >> a lot of people assumed that it was because i was warning about the dangers of surveillance and he thought i would therefore be sympathetic to his view point. it was much more my views on journalism. i had been critical for example of the "new york times" because in 2004, jim risen had discovered that the nsa was eavesdropping without warrants on the "new york times" at the behest of the bush

administration blocked him from publishing that story for a year and-a-half when george bush symen him to the oval office and said it's going to damage national security. risen got frustrated wrote a book was about to break a story and did it and they won the pulitzer prize for it. i think noden was very worried he was going to unravel his life to bring this information to a newspaper that was too close to the government. and he believed that i would report on the story adversarially and aggressively and that my being at the guardian would let me do that, that was an environment conducive to that reporting. it was my views on journalism than my views on surveillance. >> rose: how did he reach out to you. >> he e-mailed me at first and of course he was petrified in retrospect for very good reason of saying any specific like about who he was. he wanted me to install enscription. he was obsessed i install these sophisticated encryption programs i didn't know anything about and didn't now how to install. because he wouldn't tell me who he was or what he had i didn't

prioritize him. he kept urging me to do it. and over seven weeks, he got, asked me to do it and i didn't and he finally went to a documenttainer. she's one of the founding editors. she did have incorruption because of the film and he communicated with her and asked her to involve me and we spoke on-line. laura and snowden and i did for maybe six weeks in encrypted environments and he insisted i come to hong kong and i told him i would as long as i got a sense what he had. he sent me a few documents which were shocking. >> rose: what were they. >> one was the prism program which made a big impact on the world about nsa access to facebook, google and yahoo and the like. others were training material that nsa analysts get to show the range of the information that they could get. at that point i knew this was the most serious leak in nsa history. i got on the next plane to new

york and met with them at the guardian and then i went to hong kong and we worked with snowden for the next ten days. >> rose: tell me your first impression. >> i was, you know, shocked because i had been assuming that he was this very senior official because he had access to all kinds of information that were top secret. but more so he had a very sophisticated insight, sort of this world where he viewed about what the national security state had become. when i saw this kid, he's 29 but looks six years younger wearing jeans and a t-shirt it was very disorienting. i thought it might be a scam or i thought it was the son of the actual source and he was going to take us sort of like hiding behind the curtain. but then i sat down with him immediately questioned him for six straight hours and saw that he was extremely serious and credible and that i could rely on him as a source where i took the credibility not just of guardian but my so the line to

reporting these documents. >> rose: do you believe that he has disclosed anything that he has and perhaps not made it public but has disclosed it to the chinese government or the russian government? >> i absolutely do not believe that. >> rose: what means to know that. >> you can never prove a negative. i can't in any other way prove to you something did not happen including that. i can tell you the evidence and "the washington post" who worked with snowden thinks it's unlikely it happened. in part he's a highly trained operative by the nsa and how to protect digital information by the invasion of the most sophisticated government. most of all he didn't do what he did. unravel his life or imprison his life to turn over information to a foreign government that would help them better surveil. >> rose: and destroy his credible tree. >> or turn him into a traitor. it's extremely unlikely.

>> rose: anything about what he's done trait trust. >> absolutely not. he could have told this material and been extremely rich for the rest of his life. he could have secretly handed it to adversary government. he did what you would want come to journalists and ask the journalists to make decisions what should be published and what shouldn't. >> rose: he does not come in an act of civil disobedience. >> there's a lot of what that entails. daniel ran an up he had in "the washington post" saying he was right to flee. >> rose: i know that but there are people who argue if you are prepared to engage in civil disobedience to violate the law you should be willing to stand up to the punishment if of as you well know. >> there was a very good chance he was going to end up in prison for the rest of his life. we assumed in hong kong that was by far the most likely outcome. he managed to escape that. i don't think it requires that you turn yourself over to decades in a cage in order to prove that your acts noble. >> rose: what is he asking

for now? >> i think he was very clear and to me this is the most impressive part that he did not want to single, unilaterally single handedly destroy these programs which he found so disturbing which he could have done by uploading these documents to the internet. he wanted to trigger worldwide debate to let human beings decide whether or not this is something we want to allow to happen to the internet. and i think he's been extremely graft fide that he debate far more serious and wide spread and sustained than anything we thought in the best case snare grow would happen has actually happened. i think what he wants is exactly what is happening which is democratic debate. >> rose: do you think he expects to live in russia the rest of his life. >> he thinks it's a possibility. there's a degreat in germany and brazil to he can tend asylum to him and brazil the two countries acted more strongly to the revelations. and i think that that's a possibility. but it's very possible that he will end up in russia for the rest of his life. >> rose: a lot of very tough

pragmatic and hard minded people have said to me it's impossible that something happened in russia for boothen to allow him to stay there. he must have given the russians something to allow this. >> it's very easy to make accusations or claims about evidence as people have done about that. i have never seen edward snowden lie. i believe him when he says he went to russia without any of the digital material. >> rose: where is it? >> he got rid of what he had physically. >> rose: before he got on the plane. >> he gave it to journalists and purposely didn't take it with him. let me just say something about putin. i think it's easy to see why putin wants him there. for one thing, putin has demanded the extradition of all sorts of people who are russian in the united states in the view of the position of the united states we're not giving them to you because there's no extradition treaty. it's a huge propaganda to say

we're protecting this whistleblower from the united states. i think putin lovers the fact snoind is in russia. >> rose: does it look more favorably what russia does than what the united states does. >> one of the questions we get asked sometimes is why haven't you talked a lot about russian surveillance and the answer is because edward snowden worked inside the surveillance and he knows very little about russian surveillance other than what is publicly known. sort of a theory that i think a lot of people have talked about, you stand up and object to your own government as opposed to governments halfway across the world which you have no influence. but i think that -- >> rose: i understand that argument. >> i think that's part of what motivates him but i think it is the fact that the u.s. government is so far ahead of every other country in terms of capabilities and resource devotion. there's a reason why we're so far ahead of other countries because we spend $75 billion a year on surveillance. >> rose: because we created

the technology revolution in a huge way. >> and the internet largely physically is on the u.s. soil. you're right there are lots of different reasons. >> rose: i read for you the nsa was contemporary to the experience of the digital culture. what did you mean. >> there's the idea of the internet from the beginning was that it was going to be this kind of vast free place that would equalize the playing field and power the powerless, liberate people. the only way that that would really work is if we were able to express ourselves with privacy, we were able to coordinate and organize with our fellow citizens freely. what the nsa has done is converted the internet from this unprecedented zone of freedom into the most powerful means of surveillance ever known in human history. it really has subverted what the internet in its greatest promise could have been and that's why younger people in particular is in support of the snowden revelation because they understand what the internet could have been for themselves because they grew up with them.

>> rose: you and others say privacy is a component of what it imagines to be an american. >> sure. i mean privacy from the beginning. i think the american ethos has always been this is my land, the government cannot interrate even if it's to catch criminals unless there's a probable cause search warrant and the idea of being a felon as the supreme court says is anchor rights to everything else. >> rose: as you release the information through these newspapers and other sources, other distributors, do they pay you for the information so they can print it. >> they don't pay me for the information they pay me for the work as a freelance journalist. >> rose: they pay you for what you right not what you release. >> if i were to cooperate with people the government can say i converted myself from a german else to a source and i lost the protection legally that i need to public top secret information. >> rose: it is said you were offended when they described not

as a journalist but as a blogger or activist. >> i don't really mind what labels people apply because these labels don't have much meaning they're just shorthand signifiers. it was the new york limes that led the way doing it, they called me an activist and blogger repeatedly is because there are very serious legal questions that come from publishing top secret information. it's by no means clear that it's a legal thing to do. and the one thing that enables you to do it is that you act as a journalist and therefore can invoke the first amendment free press provisions and to have other journalists essentially while i'm doing it go out of their to pick me something outside of journalism, i do think was disturbing. >> rose: here's what i don't understand. how deep does this go? not the surveillance, but the information of somebody, you or whoever is in charge, who is in charge of it. >> we are the only ones who have the full archive "the washington post" and "new york times" all have very substantial.

>> rose: how much is it? >> there are many tens of thousands of top secret documents. so the question now becomes we're thinking about ways to expand the access for other media organizations around the world. >> rose: have you seen all of them >> by now i have looked at all the documents at least once. >> rose: give me your instinct. >> it is just stunning to watch. i'm somebody who has written about this for a long time and i have been warning for a long time and i thought the ns was an out of control agency engaged in indiscriminate surveillance and yet i was genuinely shocked. even to this day 11 months later remain shocked when i read these documents just to see in practice the idea that all of our communications electronically telephone and internet, all of our activities in the eyes of this other should be collected and stored. it is unbelievable to watch and believe that and put it into action. >> rose: are they deep american secrets that go beyond

surveillance in these documents. deep american secrets about how we go about our national security. now how we obtain information but information we have? >> the nsa is part of the defense department. it's run by generals, it cooperates by things like the program and things like deployment of troops around the world. i want of the first reports i did in our new journalistic venture was with jeremy about who should live and who should the die through the drone program. there are a lot of very sensitive documents in the archive that he gave us that go beyond surveillance. >> rose: you have described the last piece of material that you released would be like a firecracker and it will be a great finale. >> right. >> rose: what consequences will come from the great finale. >> i think that if you look at the surveillance abuses in the past the principal question has always been on whom is the

government spying domestically and for what reasons. which who are their targets. and that's the missing part of the puzzle in terms of the public reporting that has taken place. >> rose: who the targets are. >> who specifically are the targets domestically. american citizens, u.s. persons, people legally inside the united states. and so the investigation that we're currently working on in the reporting that we're currently doing that i do think will complete the picture is to answer that question in a very comprehensive way. >> rose: when will that happen? >> as soon as it's ready. if i give you a time frame my editor will call me and probably murder me. so i don't want to put that pressure on myself. but it's coming sooner rather than later. >> rose: i don't want to be responsible. >> thank you, i appreciate that. >> rose: finally, suppose you do defined out in fact you have done grievous damage. you seem like a rational man to me. grievous damage to american national security or that has caused harm to people. what will you do? will you say i was wrong, i'm

sorry? >> i think that all reporting entails risks. i mean i think we're making the best judgments we can. i don't expect that to happen. if it did happen, i would be the first to acknowledge that it did. but i also think there's grievous harm from allowing a very powerful government the world's most powerful government to do extremely consequencual things without any transparency. >> rose: to point out and -- that point is made isn't night. >> but you know as a journalist you realize when you disclose secret documents, there is a risk that you could make a bad judgment. you can make a mistake that can result in harm to somebody. and i say that i take that risk because the risk of allowing this information to remain suppressed is extreme. it's quite great. and so like i said, i don't expect it to happen and if it did we would hold ourselves accountable the way we do with other people. >> rose: what fears do you have. >> i have a fear that we're not going to find the right way to

get all the information that should be public out into the public in a responsible way. i feel a burden, an obligation to make sure that what should be reported gets reported in a timely fashion. and it's a difficult challenge. i worry about that. for a long time i worried about what the legal consequences would be of my doing this journalism. there were senior obama officials arguing that it was criminal and that we could be arrested if it came back to the u.s. my partner -- >> rose: conversations with senior obama officials about this. >> they publicly said it. i have good lawyers who have contact in the justice department trying to get assurances if i came back to the u.s. i wouldn't be arrested. >> rose: you were given assurances. >> they were given no assurances they kept us in the dark in a state of untheatre about whether they intended to do that. they wouldn't give us any information. my partner was detained and there was an act of terrorism investigation in the uk. there's definitely been risks and when you have many tens of thousands of secret documents there are a lot of intelligence agencies around the world would

like to get their hands on that. there are security risks, physical risks. >> rose: how many officials would like to get their hands on it, doesn't that say something. >> yes. it could just say that they want to know how to defend themselves against the invasions of the communication. but you know, i mean if the united states government is invading the communications of government officials, of onyx will -- of up sue lates you want to do how to do it. maybe you want to do how to replicate it and do it yourself. >> rose: are any communications going on with edward snowden to allow him to believe to come back and get whatever he's looking for. >> there are some negotiations but they're not very fruitful. i don't see the u.s. government will allow him to return without a lot of jail time. he has lawyers including the -- >> rose: who is in negotiation with them. >> the justice department. >> rose: there are conversations with the justice department and lawyers under

what circumstances he could come back. >> there are. they haven't progressed very far at all. >> rose: when will you see him. >> i expect to go to russia at some point in the very near future for an interview and for -- >> rose: an interview with him or to be interviewed about this book. >> to be interviewed jointly with him. and i can't disclose the details yet because it hasn't been announced but that will happen in this very short future so it will be the reunion of our one year anniversary from hong kong. >> rose: the book is called no place to hide. glenn greenwald, subtitled edward snowden, the nsa and the united states surveillance state. thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: christopher buckley is here. just think about that, novelist, essayist he's been called a humorist, a term he despises.

this is a collect lunnion of essay. think of this title, think enough about you. my pleasure to have christopher buckley and have him back at this table. the stage is yours. >> you introduced a me not being called a humorist and this is true. satryist my late dad would call an out of town word. >> rose: he knew something about that. >> and the $10 words he called them. i was once speaking at a civic event in ohio. they're very nice. they're much nicer than we are in the the east, although they're very nice in the carolinas. it was one of those 11:00 in the morning things. the audience, a civic auditorium

of a thousand blue-haired ladies and silver-haired ladies. and my host was a sweet sweet person, introduced me as a satirist. not just once but the introduction went on and referred to me four times as a satirist. probably me had some people wondering where they invited a sex fiend at 11:00 in the morning. but it's an unwielding -- >> rose: how did we get this titles. enough about you. >> did you like it? that's all -- >> rose: i reminded the audience -- >> it got your attention. it's not easy getting the attention of influential people. >> rose: all right. so here, first of all on a very very serious note dedicated to christopher hitchens with this

faithful old. >> it's dedicated to my late great christopher hitchens and the dedication of faithful old body. it's what he used, it's a line from the character anthony blanch the very flamboyant character says at various point to charles writer the narrator. i'm a faithful old body and i've been keeping my eye on you. christopher was a fellow of infinite chest who awe -- adorned this table many times. this is a very small but heartfelt tribute to a very dear friend. there are a couple things in here about him i wrote an appreciation of him for the new yorker the day he died. there's a review of his very last book which is called mortality. a marvelous book in which he died, he was diagnosed, he was diagnosed almost on the day his

memoir was published. it was eerie. he wrote a marvelous book called hitched 22. and practically, i think it was actually the very week it was published, he was stricken. >> rose: i think he had given a lecture that night. >> yes, he did. with salmon rush die and he was tricken and diagnosed with mortal illness with stage of esophageal cancer. he threw the kitchen sink against it. his primary care, one of his primary care physicians was francis collins head of the nih and the other was head of the ni something. and he underwent every protocol there was. i visited him down at the md alexander center in houston. >> rose: where is which he

died. >> with proton radiation. but he lasted 18 months. he probably bought himself, you know, at least 12 of those months with these protocalls. and he kept a record of it. he wrote to the very end his vanity fair column. he wrote about, he wrote about his dying. he wrote about he called it the land of malady. anyway. >> rose: showed uncommon courage in the way he faced death. >> nothing so became him as his in life as the way he left it. he was a very dear friend and i miss him and i miss his takes on everything. every time something happened. >> rose: here's what it is. this preface is really about on writing. >> it's about, it's about the writer's ego as my editor says i think this is the occasion for a meaty introduction on the ego of the writer. i said why would you --

>> rose: would anyone want to write without having an ego? >> well, can one, could one do anything without having some ego. but in this sense in which i think you mean it. well, i quote an authority named george orwell at the end of that essay who is rather stuff on writers. i think he says all writers are vein and selfish and exhibitionists. >> rose: you also quote -- who said make everyone laugh but bore him in a right way and your reputation is assured. >> isn't that a great quote. it's just such a great quote. i say in the first sentence the preface i'll cop to being a trivial fellow. i never had any notions about that. but i can say with a straight

face that my goal has never been to bore the reader. >> rose: this follows that quote. this irk some quote, i can say with a face that my goal has never been to bore the reader. he has a point. maybe i've been going at this all wrong but i'm 61 now so it's a bit late in the game to be worrying about that. so at 61, what else don't you worry about. and how does you -- >> what else don't i worry about. >> rose: how does christopher buckley see life at 61? 's good about that and what's not so good about that? not life but how do you see it. >> i actually, despite the aches and pains, you see i'm heavily medicated right now. but despite those, i would rather, i rather like being 61.

i find myself calmer, i think the ego which you see delicately introduced is a little, is a little calmer. the blood lies tamer. >> rose: have you essentially as a writer done what you intended to do? >> well, yes and no, charlie. this is my 16th book. >> rose: what are you most proud of there? >> who could choose from such a bounty. but those are, you know, i've been, those are essays written over the course of 25 years. and i picked what i thought were, you know, the better ones. >> rose: you wrote an

obituary for gore vidal. >> i was asked by the republic in the occasion of his death. >> rose: your dad and gore -- >> they had a certain amount of history. he for some reason didn't like me either although we never met. but when my father died he weighed in and said r.i.p. in hell and called him a number of things including an hysterical queen which i wasn't sure where that came from. and then he called me a creepy and brain dead. it was like, was it my after shave. so yes, i wrote, i was asked to write about him and i made a few observations which is that i thought he, he and my dad had a

famous -- was televised live in 1968. and my dad never, he sort of let go of it, my dad. you know, the only time i ever heard him refer to gore vidal in later years was usually admiringly. gore vidal was offered membership in the american, the influential american academy of arts and letters. do you remember this, do you remember his response. thanks, i already have diner's club. my dad thought that was one of the wittiest. but vidal took his demons to his grave. he was an angry guy. >> rose: gore vidal was an

angry guy. >> gore vidal. my dad was a great christian and he, i think, i never asked him what went on in his soul vis-a-vis gore vidal but i think his basic posture was one of charity, foe giveness, move on, life is too short. >> rose: there's never, i never asked you this and i want you to respond as best you can. what was it like living with the shadow of a father who was considered by many a great man? it's hard to know because you only have one father. >> well, it's, you've in a way answered it. it's your normal. it wasn't until you know,

sitting there at home with him, you're not sitting there thinking well my father's a great man. but when you walk through an airport with him and every ten feet someone would stop and say oh, mr. buckley, i love your show or i read your book. so i was obviously cognizant. what i admired about him most wasn't his, you know, wasn't his fame, it was his extraordinary goodness, i would say. >> rose: goodness. >> i've known a number of splendid men in my day. my dad would be the finest. george herbert w. bush, george h.w. bush would be probably up there too. there was a gentleness to them.

these were people who had been through the crucible and yet retained a gentleness of soul. >> rose: might you have been a better or different writer if you has not been buckley, jr. did you ever ask that question because it was at time contentious relationship was it not. >> oh sure. we fought, we fought a bit. but we also so had intense love. i was an only child which made it perhaps all the more intense. it's an impossible question to answer, whether or not i would have been a worse writer if my father hadn't ... i learned an awful lot from them. i mean, i had a, he was one hell of a mentor when it came to writing. and he was a tough grader too. i did not spring from the womb writing well.

i had to learn this. >> rose: have you ever thought about that question or is it just an answerable question so therefore you never think about it. >> it's not something i tend to wake up in the morning puzzling over. but you know, it is. i consider myself the most fortunate guy in the world to have been his son. >> rose: this book is enough about your days when you were 18 or something like that. the commencement butterfly in there. but seriously the supreme court and a short history of the billionaire. then you go into out and about bramables, is farewells in which you've written about good-bye to people including gore vidal. >> yes. >> rose: criticism from

kissinger on china. >> there's a review in there volume two of the joy of sex. >> rose: and men can't be wrong. are you a franco phile. >> i would consider myself, christopher hitchens would say savant -- >> rose: continuing education and finally essay. thank you for not warning me. as i was saying, henry kissinger. >> an essay on name dropping. name dropping technique. >> rose: as i was saying henry kissinger has so much respect we would be having serious conversations. >> i'm tempted now to change it to, as i was saying to charlie rose. >> rose: you just don't let go. and i like this one. i like to drink a martini. ending with, go ahead. i like to drink a martini, is

that your favorite drink. >> i like to drink a martini. maybe two. three i'm under the table, four i'm under the host. >> rose: great to have you, sir. >> great to be here. >> rose: if you want to laugh, live at christopher buckley but dedicated to our friend christopher hitchens. christopher buckley, but not, i can't even pronounce the title, what am i doing. >> it's caught you. give it a round. go home. >> rose: it's 7:00, for god's sake. christopher buckley but enough about you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh

access.wgbh.org

the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ ♪ ♪ every single bite needed to be great. >> twinkies in there. >> wow! >> it's like a great, big hug in the whole city. >> that food is about all i can handle. my parents put chili powder in my baby food. >> french fries everywhere, all over the table and just a lot of chili.