>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the nsa security leaks, talking with john miller, phil mudd, marc rotenberg and barton gellman. >> whether it's e-mail or instant messaging or you're up on social media. what will americans expect in terms of their presence in the digital age. we know what we expect in terms of our physical security. you get tested in an airport about whether your shoes have explosives, you can't have the same thing happen in a supermarket. we need a bigger debate beyond verizon, beyond this case to say if you're out there and verizon can collect your information or

some other company social media company yahoo or whatever can collect your information is it okay for the u.s. government to have it. that's the bigger debate. >> rose: we conclude with the unrest in turkey, with henri barkey, steven cook and hugh pope. >> the issue is how do you deal with minorities and other people who may have voted for you or agree with you. this is partially because he's not involved himself with yes men and who do not never challenge him. they always say you're like the prime minister. >> rose: surveillance story and the future of turkey when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: tonight we continue our coverage of one of the big else national security leaks in

u.s. history, classified documents reveals security, the fate of edward snowden. there are conflicts between liberty and security. philip mudd is the counterforces. and mark rat billion and barton gellman, one of the journalist whom snowden approached to break the story and john miller of cbs news. i many pleased to have all of them in this program. i began with my colleague john miller and please tell us where this story is today and where is it heading. >> so right now you've got the justice department and the fbi and the nsa all comparing notes that will eventually develop into charges. this is the kind of thing that

could usually spin up in a couple days, cepted in this case the -- except in this case the charges have to be consistent with extradition treaty with hong kong would require and they have to be the charges that he is brought to trial o part of the treaty is you can't bring up one set of charges, g them extradited and change that. so this is the whole game to them and they want to make sure they get it right. we probably would have seen this yesterday if that wasn't the case, it may take a couple more days. in the meantime the question is where is he, is he as the fbi say in pocket that means somebody has eyes on him if they want to pick him up can they do that. we don't know much about that. >> rose: we don't know who else he might be talking to at this time. >> that's right. >> rose: that's the danger of time. >> well i think there's also a competitive interest. when you have a potentially disgruntled american walking around with nsa secrets looking

for asylum there are a number of other governments who might not be the best friend of the united states who would love to meet a guy. >> rose: and he will give them the secrets. >> yes. >> rose: phil mudd, what do you think of this so far. >> i have to question some of the premises not that this individual did something wrong i believe he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law but the extent of the damage to the leak. to meet definition of a leak is how much does it tell your adversary. in this case what are we telling the adversary that we listen to phones. excuse me, they've known this for years. people talk about this being one of the severe i was leaks in recent memory. i'm not so sure i buy that. >> rose: really. >> if you look at other leaks, for example the leak about yemen a few years ago, that leak was extremely damaging because it limited our access to al-qaeda once that source was blown. again, what are we telling the adversary here, that we have tremendous capability to vacuum

up electrons. to me that's not a revelation. >> rose: marc rotenberg, how do you see it? >> well i think we're using the term leak a little bit loosely. the first document disclosed wan surveillance of all american telephone customers which was a remarkable document. there's a strong indication certainly many people believe that that surveillance authority exceeded what the court could authorize. now you can talk about mr. snowden and how that prosecution might proceed but i think probably the bigger story is that there was a secret authority to conduct this extraordinary surveillance. >> rose: phil mudd, do you hear that. >> i hear that. to me we looked under the bush administration at an executive order to do this. this was transferred over to a legal process and i want to emphasize that. a legal process overseen by judges in a court at this point.

i don't think it's that extraordinary to collect data that is metadata. whether you call the number. to me it would have been much more significant if the u.s. government had been vacuuming up people's e-mails or the content of the phone calls. that's a different question. >> let's be fair about this phil because putting this program under legal authority as you know is very controversial, in terms of what became authorized. all of us following the debate thought this was the collection of foreign intelligence. i read that comport order and i studied that court for 20 years. i have never seen the authorization for solely domestic communications. do you think that was what was agreed to? >> look, i'm not a legal expert. i think that question's too small. to my mind the question in the 21st century is whether e-mail or instant messaging or whether you're up on social media, what do americans expect in terms of their presence in the digital age. we know what we expect in terms of our physical security.

you get tested in an airport about whether your shoes have explosives, you can't have the same thing happen in a supermarket. we need it bigger than verizon, if you're out there and verizon can collect your information or some social media company yahoo or whatever can collect your information is it okay for the u.s. government to have it. that's a bigger debate. >> rose: i want to get back to all of that because it is the debate people are talking about we need to have. who is this guy? he called you, sent you a message. >> yes. it was certainly a phone call he worked for the nsa and he had pretty good idea about security on that. >> rose: it turned out "the washington post" and the guardian got this story. >> that's the only thing i want to come on here and talk about because even though the guy -- he was just a guy has come out given his name, there are a lot of source confidentiality issues that are around here. and if you don't mind, i would like to just respond to something that was said earlier.

i mean the president has said he would welcome a debate on that. in actual practice he has done all he can to suppress that dee and keep information away from the public to enable that. for example he would be capable of declassifying a little bit more about the general outline of these programs. he's also said we shouldn't worry about it so much because it's only metadata and we started here about in program. here's what metadata g it's not a call to and from it's the location of the callers. there are a number of other things and it has to do with building a social network profile so that you know, if i know all your calls and your locations, i know whether, i know where you live, where you work, whether you're going to a cancer clinic, whether you're having an affair. what your political associations are. met pa data are very powerful. if i had a choice, i would rather have anybody sort of

listening in on all my calls than have all my metadata. >> the question is what good is the metadata if they know all that but they don't know what the name is, they don't know who you are. they claim at least from the president on down is, there are numbers against numbers. they have no value unless you run them against something. what are you going to run them against, against a known are terrorists. then you have to go get -- attach some process tight. >> is it accurate, though. first of all they run them against someone who they believe is 51% probable by their algorithms to be not an american national and to be of interest inform a terrorism or counterespionage or proliferation investigation. the way they work and i think you know all about is contact chain. so you're collecting against someone you think is more likely than not to be foreign.

but then everyone in that in box and outbox is also being collected and many of them are going to be americans. then they go to the second level. we all know six degrees of separation. when you get to the sixth, you got the whole planet. you're collecting incidentally that's their term of art very great deal of american metadata or content depending which program. once they collect it they feel perfectly free to keep it and search it and do what they like. >> hold on, time out here. let's offer a different perspective here. in the most 9/11 environment people like me were told be sure back stuff doesn't have. there are two chicks -- characteristic to that bad stuff. you have a bad guy and you're going to vision that individual because some government overseas says he's in contact with one of our al-qaeda members. the second problem we have is around that bad guy is a conspiracy potentially, money, travel, somebody who indoctrinated him.

there's a very quick way to build an understanding of that conspiracy and that is put together everything he's done, who he's called, e-mail, who he sent money to. so we can either automate that or we can't. and so i think the question that has to do with not only the privacy issue but how quickly can we build a conspiracy when people like me were told make sure nothing bad happens in this country. >> but it used to be if you collected that stuff and you found a lot of innocent people swept up in it, which you're going to because there are not tens of thousands or millions of terrorists in the country. that the old fashion way is you chucked. that's specifically what they don't want to do now and they opposed any legislation that would force them to do that. >> but that's why i think the debate is important. old fashion in this world could be five years old. the debate has to be current day which is we have this capability do we want to use it or not. we didn't have it ten years

ago. >> the flip side is we have to talk this out in a wider spectrum. if something good has come out of the snowden disclosures, it's well now that it's all out there and it's in a other that secret anymore, does that make it able to be discussed in a wider platform and maybe that should be it. but i still think if you take the baseline, charlie, of when you have a boston marathon bombing, the first question that everybody asks at "the washington post," at the "new york times" and all those places is, well they got a tip on this guy from the russians, why weren't they wiretapping his phones. well he's a u.s. person. why weren't they following him 24 hours a day. the public has this zero expectation that anything's going to happen. and the media has this propensity to somebody if something happens it must be somebody's fault because they weren't watching close enough. part of the debate has to be where is the balance here. politicians have a long time

ago, trade liberty for security is a fool who deserves neither and that goes back to thomas jefferson. it's not a new debate but as phil points other it's one that is colored quarterly almost by advances in technology and probably needs to be discussed. >> rose: marc come in on this. >> look obviously everybody wants the government to have the information and the tools to be able to keep the country safe and to make use of new technology. i really don't think that's what we're arguing about. i think the debate has to be over whether the current techniques are oversight or adequate. that's what concerns us. it's the sense of the fisa court no longer operates in a meaningful way on the check of the national security agency in its quest to gather data. and those systems of oversight are critical. when you're asking for everything, i think you're asking for nothing. you don't have individualized suspicion, you don't have a target. you just have the opportunity to

gather a lot of data from u.s. companies and you take advantage of it. and i find that troubling. it doesn't suggest to me that the government is doing what it needs to do to keep the public safe. >> rose: lots of questions also about mr. snowden. i mean, he had a checkered background. he dropped out of college, dropped out of high school. he didn't -- his record, did he. >> a lot of us are overwhelmed what he had access to and what he could do. >> don't be fooled by the idea he dropped out of school. >> rose: give me your appraisal of it. >> okay, sure. bill gates and steve jobs did okay. he is, he is a very competent, very skillful operator. i has exceptionally good computer skills. he was entrusted with highly, very important and very secured computer networks.

he doesn't have an education formally, but i can tell you he speaks and he writes really well, speaks different languages -- >> rose: got out of high school and is 13 and sold his company for a billion dollars. is he that good and that 1345ur9 and -- good and if so what was his motivation. >> he was good enough to exfiltrate a substantial amount of classified eci, and make it out of the country and into a country with hostile jurisdiction. it took a lot of planning and skill i'd say. his motivation i think is exactly what he said. you can think what he did was good or bad for the country, but it is just self evidently from his behavior and from his knowledge of his likely faith, something that was done to him

out of idealistic purposes. >> rose: what do you think about this guy, personalize it for a while. >> if you look at the profile i go a step back which is here's a guy who could not excel at school, didn't seem to stay in a job for very long and hopped from thing to thing, i don't know him the way barton does but on paper he seems fairly undistinguished. and then what you have is a much more common phenomenon which is a guy who seems to be again on paper. i haven't spoken to him. extremely unremarkable, all of a sudden becomes remarkable because he does something to bring attention to himself. >> rose: motivated by attention? >> well he's got a little propensity towards grandiosity and melodrama and a martyr complex. i've done this great thing now what's going to happen to me. i wonder again from a profiling standpoint, if this is actually

altruism and truth seeking. there are a number of other ways he could have done this within the system. there are whistleblower statutes, there are congressional committees, there are other ways to do this. and i'm very, i'm as curious about him as you are. >> can i just jump in. >> rose: go a head marc. >> one of the interesting issues here is he were working in the federal government let's say, he had maybe a whistleblower protection, could have gone to inspector general. but of course he was working for a private company, and we have a lot of private companies doing this work because the federal government has outsourced so much intelligence collection and processing. and i don't think it's quite as clear frankly when you have a situation with a person or private company concerned about the company's mission, what are they supposed to do, where do they turn. this is not the person within the agency that might have someone that they can go to if

they sense a problem. >> i just want to add a little bit more about the personality. i've been a reporter for a long time. i have a keen eye to trying to figure out people's flaws and i do not detect a whole lot of grandiosity or desire for personal attention. he said that he wanted to be, and he is the first that i know of, someone who would stand up and say i'm doing this, i accept the consequences, i feel strongly enough about this. >> rose: what are the consequences. i mean what is he prepared to accept? >> well he's already accepted -- >> rose: do what they think they legally ought to do. >> he's accepted the extreme here high likelihood that the life as he knew it is over. >> rose: he could accept that because he wanted to be famous. i'm suggesting, i don't know i never talked to him but this is the profile i've heard come out

of john. >> i have no brief for the guy. i just, i detected none of that. >> rose: when push comes to shove at the bottom line end of the day whatever phrase you want to use, he did this because he felt his government had no business intercepting private communications of its citizens. >> that's a very good saw zinc way of saying it. >> the weekly occurrence at the time i was in the intelligence community largely had to do with arguments with them about stuff they wouldn't do. they had a legion of lawyers. they had a sufficient purporting system if you had an osper, that's a u.s. person. then they have to self report that and that report goes to management and over to general council and copy to the inspector general and pour through it was it inadvertent or accidental, was this on purpose.

they all ended every conversation we had with can't we take a deeper look into this or more of a look of that with i'm not going to jail or i'm not losing my job and we have to worry about u.s. persons. i'm saying it was a diligence but almost a paranoia. y i'm having trouble and i think phil would too reconciling this portrait that we get from mr. snowden of this rampant ongoing surveillance of everybody's personal e-mails and facebook pages. who would have the time, who would have the wherewithal, why would they be interested in when my other experience was we were doing triage on targets. we had more bad guys than we had ears and headphones. we had more targets than we had people to pour over, and we had to make tough choices. that was my experience and my dealings with the nsa and their systems. now maybe i have a different view because i didn't see the whole picture.

i didn't work there. >> this guy i asked him specifically, he does not impute evil motives to his farmer colleagues in the intelligence community. he was not a contractor, he was an employee at the cia as well. he knows that people don't want to break the law or do the wrong thing. but he also shared for example training materials. q&a format. what happens if you pick up a u.s. american. and it says you have to put it into a quarterly report but it's nothing to worry about, quote/unquote. >> that's what they said which is these things will happen because particularly on the internet you don't always know who is on the other end of that communication but when you figure it out, put it in the report. the idea was not to stymie reporting, it was so they could keep track of it. >> rose: phil mudd are you listening to this and marc. >> i differ with a lot of this conversation. i find the debate about the substance is fascinating what is privacy in the 21st century.

let me tell you something the 10,000th young person who decides the inspectors general, the fisa court, the lawyers at ci, fbi, nsa i'm a contractor i know better i'm the savior for america i don't find that interesting. we've seen it before, we'll see it again. i'm not particularly interested in this guy's life story. >> rose: well, i am. >> no, but my point is we're trying too hard here. this guy has a savior complex and he thinks he's smarter than every lawyer in government, every bureaucracy, the whitehouse and the congress. i've seen that one before i'm sure that's how it will play out here. >> rose: marc, weigh in. ask a question, go ahead. >> i wanted to come back to a point that john made. i agree with you john, actually i've spoken over at the national security agency, i know the lawyers there are very concerned about privacy issues and i know people who work there are very concerned about these issues. but i think you also have to

acknowledge just in the last decade that's been a very rapid evolution of the technology. they have a lot more capability, a lot more data. people have become a lot of more ambitious while simultaneously the legal safeguard could actually have been diminished. and i think that is not a good situation to be in. it means that there's less oversight and less accountability. and that's why i think congress this week is going to need to look much more closely at these programs. even people with good intention i think can end up going down bad roads and that's a real risk here. >> i think i can offer an explanation that can sort of get us more quickly to the principals involved. >> rose: okay. >> there's a bicycle stolen in a village. the easiest way to find it was to search the house. you used to get a warranted with probable cause to go into anyone's house. likewise for communication. what happened after president

bush's program and it got regularized into the fisa court they came up with a new doctrine. they didn't have to specify a particular target. the target they got a warrant for once a year was the entire network switch or the entire server of microsoft or google or facebook. and so you have a much much broader base search. and there are safeguards that they try to build into that. their algorithms in the number of selectors or search terms they use and they would have to be able to say with some reasonable claim that it's 51% likely that i'm not going after an american here. there has been a dramatic shift and it hasn't been debated. >> rose: here's what i want to do. anybody want to respond to what he just said. >> one quick comment. i think it's bigger than that. americans have said we will sacrifice privacy every minute to every day to amazon to my phone company. i'm going to make my life accessible to a variety of companies i can't even compound. but if the government touches that in an effort to solve a

conspiracy i don't like it. i'm not saying what the government did is right or wrong, i'm saying that americans have already taken steps to sacrifice privacy and now they are nervous about it. >> i think the key difference there -- >> rose: privacy was for commerce and now it's privacy for security is that the idea. >> that's right. but the difference is when you sacrifice private -- prive -- privacy and you know they're track is them. the government doesn't send a letter saying by the way this is what we collected. you'll find the resent poll actually goes against everything i'm saying which is 32% of the people said they valued privacy more than preventing the next terrorist attack or security. >> rose: what percent. >> 32% over the other percents. maybe i've got it wrong but i think there's a principle there of self determination, which is what my credit card company tracks, i have a tacit agreement with them when i sign up.

before this disclosure, you know, would i have had the same feeling about the government. >> you know, actually that's an interesting point and there's a congress to this one too which is in a way i would see the fisa amendment acts as being analogous to the terms of service you click through on amazon and yahoo and aol and google which is to say that it is very broad and you have no idea what it means in practice. one reason the people have given up so much privacy to the commercial sector is the commercial sector's been pretty good at concealing what actually happens when you click. >> rose: what they do with it. >> that's right, and what they do with it. >> rose: so i want to come back to not him but i want to come to the question everybody in the new york files editorializes the president speaks. everybody says we ought to have this debate. mr. mudd says we ought to have a debate. i want each of you to tell me how you would like to see how you would frame the debate. and i'll start with you phil.

what's the debate the country needs to. >> high level focused on cost benefit. in the 21st century, increasingly everywhere you move you're going to allow people to have access to data. so the cost is forget about content. i don't want to go there, i think we should always have a requirement by content i mean for example what you're saying in a phone call, a requirement it's pretty high to look at content. but if you have phone number x called phone number y or i clicked on this database should e be able to look at that. the cost though and the benefit is you got to have politician say before we have another boston. we don't want to do that, we're not going to be able to map conspiracies as quickly as we might v as long as we understand that, we won't collect on your metadata. there's got to be cost benefit involved here. >> rose: so the debate in your mind is what are the cost benefits of surveillance. >> of surveillance but not just for verizon at a high level, across your entire life, atm,

e-mail, interest messengering, social media. you're making your life public should the government have access to that. >> rose: marc what's the debate. >> i think the debate right now charlie is about the adequacy about the -- i think it needs to be a public debate. i think people have too readily accepted the view that this is an issue that's going to be resolved classified briefings. too many members of congress get drawn into this and then they become part of the agreement that's never discussed in public. we need an open debate and have the government put forward its theories. not about how the data is collected or being used but the legal authorities that the department of justice says it has under the patriot act and i think those should be disclosed. so i would say greater openness

and a focus on fisa oversight. >> rose: it should be a debate. >> i think it's about power and the relative power of citizen and state and the mutual transparency. there are ways in which right now we're living behind a one way mirror which the government is learning more and more about us and we're learning less and less about how they do that. and this idea about the secret law is very important not everybody understands it that the congress passes a fairly broad law. the execute writes a highly classified interpretation of that law. the intelligence committees are told that interpretation and sore the courts. but if you ask the government in open session or in an interview, how do you internal these powers. what is it you think you're allowed to do. they'll say i won't tell you and you say why won't you tell me. i can't tell you. i mean that's literal lear the basic outline and i'm wonder if

it's enough. >> it's a two prong debate. do we need to discuss or understand what is our reasonable expectation of privacy. i mean we used to expect privacy if we were walking down the street all by ourselves at 3:00 in the morning. now there's 57 security cameras not just pointing in our direction but also reporting that changed our reasonable expectation of privacy. i think the second prong is, what is our reasonable understanding which is different from our expectation. as phil has kind of vented at here, we have become a society that lives outloud. we tweet everything, we're on our facebook page we post this and friend 3,000 people and some don't know who the 3,000 are or thousand. then where is this other standard that we never expect anyone to know that a phone number without our name attached to it called another phone number that might be connected

to al-qaeda. i think we need to reframe both of those. >> rose: thank you john miller, thank you bart, thank you marc, thank you phil. the conversation continues here. back in a moment, we'll talk about protest in turkey. stay with us. we turn now to protest in turkey which has been their 10th day which began as environmental protestation in istanbuled country. there's violent clashes. the protest focused on the increasingly authoritarian tone of prime minister's government. the democratically elected leader has been criticized for liberties and media censorship. joining me is steven cook on foreign relations and henry

barkey from lehigh university and hugh pope from the international crises group. hewlett -- hugh, let me begin with this. where is your up close observation going. >> the police decided they were going to take action against the half of the protests in the square which is the most modern square of istanbul. they appeared to be trying to say something limited and they promised they wouldn't touch a group of, well many groups, about 80 groups of protesters who set up camp in the park next to the square. indeed they started off by taking down post ers from the upper house and cleaning things up supposedly but they ran into trouble pretty quickly. they started having clashes with the small groups of radical left wing protesters, it seems. and these began to throw molotov

cocktails and stones at the police and the police pretty soon moved to tear gas and it was extraordinary. it's been rolling around the square and i live about one kilometer. everyone is wearing some kind of face mask as i speak to you now. >> rose: the second part of my question was, what does it pretend for the future. >> well, the government is not moved in to get the protector's out of the park as well. and they appeared to have scattered most of them. unfortunately i think what has happened now is going to set the tone for the years ahead. this was a chance for the prime minister to show that he was going to stay low for the

reformist groups from the early 2000's and yet we have a very authoritarian image that everyone will be dealing with over the days and weeks ahead. i think we should remember that tens of thousands of people, ordinary people have joined the demonstrations all over the country in the past week. and the extraordinary many people who are injured. the deceptions of the government by the protesters not able to move against the people in the park and then a couple hours ago heading in with hundreds of policemen and literally smashing the place up. i think this is going to leave an indelible mark on national psyche for some time to come. >> rose: this is like so many things, it starts small and becomes big. >> well in a way, he's his worst own enemy. he could have easily diffused this situation from the beginning but instead his actions have essentially proven what the protesters were protesting about that he had

become too authoritarian. this is a good who commands the turkish public in terms of the election. tomorrow if he were to run again he would win again. that's not the issue, the issue is how do you deal with minorities and other part of people who may have voted or may not have voted for you but doesn't agree with you and he doesn't look at any kind of dissent. this is partially because he's not surrounded himself with yes men and who did not never challenge him. they always say -- and and in a way he's dug his engrave. he's not going to change but as hugh said this is a is he very serious event in turkish history. >> rose: in turkish history. >> i look at it positively for the first time we've seen civil society take a very very active

role. civil society has started to grow because they have more resources. they are not -- and civil society has emerged and now they decide to challenge him. he by responding like this is in the long wrong going to make civil society stronger which i think protects graduate see is good but in the short run obviously it's not. >> rose: steven cook, what would you add to that notion where this might go. >> i think as hugh said, the effort to undermine the protest through force pour tends that at least in the short run, he is clearly not interested in any kind of compromise or the consensual politics he pursued during his first term between 2003 and 2007, and the ill liberal or authoritarian turn in

turkish politics will likely continue. what henri said is certainly a hopeful sign that this is an awakening of civil society and over the long run it will be healthy for turkish democracy but only if they can build a viable political movement wit viable opposition political parties. one of the things that has contributed to the ill liberal or authoritarian turn in turkish politics has been the fact there's no check or balance coming from opposition parties who have offered, who have been unable to offer turks any kind of vision for the future that's appealing to them. and this is essentially given the justice and development party and prime minister the run of the country. >> rose: hugh clearly the government will have to take the park back. no government can allow after so many, after a length of time the

ability to take the park back, can they. >> the thing is the government now chromes this point. what about the rest of the people of istanbul who have been demonstrating. i want you to remember these demonstrations were extraordinarily in the good humor, the cheerful at must fee the -- atmosphere, people walking down the street. they didn't know why but a sense of being liberated and now the state has come down with this very old fashion crushing of everything. and i think it's really set things back. i think the government would have been better advised to scwuft the mainstream of the protesters, there were people who did need to be dealt with but letting the police do it by strong arm methods is going to set the country into i'm afraid a cycle of confrontation which

was unnecessary. i think they could have talked their way through it, they could have allowed people to add these different view points that were among these 80 different groups. but unfortunately i think now it's going to be very hard, the prime minister was given a series of combative speeches and i think that indeed is going to be as henri said he's now taken a line that he's going to find very difficult to back out of. >> rose: he scheduled a meeting for tomorrow. in the beginning he didn't want any meeting at all and now he's scheduled a meeting with selective protest leaders. >> this has been a story that was in the islamic press this morning and everybody was very happy at that thought and it seems extraordinary that even as this news was being digested by the protesters at least moved in without warning. remember you have no normal confirmation that this meeting

is actually going to take place. perhaps it is but this is an unknown part of the extraordinary confused events of today. >> rose: does this compare with the arab spring. >> certainly not. the numbers of people in the streets in taksim square don't compare to tahrir square. and prime minute firm was elected a number of times -- rather than being brought down. if you take it up a level of abstraction, a similarity in that many of the protesters in tahrir square and other places in the arab world as well as taksim square and other parts of turkey are responding to a situation in which a ruling e let is institutionalizing their power and rigs the system and

keeps the groups marginalized so they have no influence or say in the political economic affairs of the country. that's something that has metaphorically come together in the mark and -- park and isa source of these protests. >> i agree. in tahrir the protesters were about the system, the regime. here, nobody's objecting to system in turkey. the question here is i don't want behavior, i don't want governance style and the party's governance style. >> rose: in other words they wanted to go to this park and put this building in and put this kind of mall in there, correct. >> yes. but this was a spark. there are a lot of instances like that. >> rose: like what. >> for instance they just named two days before the park event they named a new bridge after a

actualson -- sultan who killeda lot of shiites. you have a turkey one party and one man state where one man decides. you have to give him credit. he decides which building is going to go up where, which commercial is going to run, whether or not the commercial can run on television, northern policy, domestic policy. he manages to keep so many bottoms in the air. >> to put a finer point on this, i think that what people are protesting in the mark and trees and building is the spark that henri said. but i think this was again about the arrogance of power, about police brutality, about crohny capitalism about a group of people who doesn't necessarily represent their views and not interested in their views and i

think that all came together in this one little protest over this mark. and it's now exploded and i think there will be negative ramifications going forward for the prime minister and the justice in developing the park. >> rose: before we talk about his party and what direction, what is the relationship and the differences between the president and the prime minister at this moment. >> remarkable turn. we have amendments during this protest when they had to do a tour of north africa. the country breathes a collective sigh of relief and immediately it's already being rumored but it was the president who told the police to withdraw on the first day of the protest when it was really rough and

that it looked like people were going to be hurt. then he came forward and made a speech and he and the president represented the protesters and seemed to be reaching some kind of consensus that the two sides could move together without having violent confrontation about the end of it to work out some way of having a more inclusive system. in addition to what steven was already saying then under estimate the environmental side of it. istanbul is a city where 98.5 of the city is built up. there's almost no green space. the bridge that henry mentioned was going to result in the cutting down of a million trees to make ways for motor ways and the airport will be built and a massive 30 mile canal to join the black sea. there are urban projects inside

the city which whole neighborhoods are being relocated whether or not the population wanted to. there's been a lot going on and i think that the president and the deputy prime minister while erdogan was away made it seem to the people there was a party they could engage w unfortunately when the prime minister came back, instead of immediately backing what his deputy had done in his absence and implicitly condoning what the president had done, he immediately set the confrontational tone which has ended up with a very violent clearing of the park this evening. >> rose: is it too early to say that regardless how this comes out, erdogan has been wounded. >> yes. he has been wounded, there's no question about it. the danger i think here is that how is this going to reflect itself on other issues. he also to his credit started a very bold initiative to come to

peace with turkey's -- a 30 year guerrilla war against the government. >> rose: he took steps to bridge that. >> he did an amazing step to talk to the media of his group. this is very important. in many ways this is a critical, was a critical event because turkey's achilles hill is a kurdish problem. if you don't solve that you can't have real economic growth, you can't have social most because kurds are everywhere. maybe 4 million of those are kurds. and the kurds are participating also in these demonstrations. so that said, these events, is he sufficiently wounded that he will not be able to carry forward the peace process. and what steve said earlier is also very important.

turkey is unfortunately the victim also of the absence of the serious opposition party that can provide alternatives, can also support the government when the government does the right thing. i mean the turkish main opposition party is absolutely the worst opposition party you can see anywhere in the world. i think in the neolithic age there were better opposition parties than you have in turkey. and that's also a problem because the peace process is very important let's not lose sight of this but i believe they will push back hard on this. >> rose: what's the role of the state media in all this steven. >> the media over the course of the last four or five years or so has been intimidated by prime minister erdogan and the justice party. there's been ownership changes that has forced media outlets to be more sympathetic to the prime

minister. as a result you have these odd circumstances in which cnn turk, the turkish affiliate of cnn is ignoring protests in taksim square and other parts of the country. where the international is carrying them live. the turkish press has really taken a hit for essentially ignoring what has happened. in fact very violent moment last weekends protesters set upon one of the news vans and tv network because they were not carrying the protest live expleght the rest of the country know exactly what was going on. >> rose: turkey has played a role in what's happening in syria would certainly have been a parts -- participants in the conferences if they take place. >> he is wounded on the street

because putting down the protesters not the same way other arab leaders has done does not look good for him. there has been opposition to his policies in turkey and although although these events have little to do with his policy, all oppose him for different reasons that are coalescing now. in some ways this is also going to affect his syria policy. the truth is though on the other hand there wasn't much he could do in terms of syria. he's upperring the syrian rebels, he has lots of refugees from syria. he's gone as far as he can and he can't go any further anyway. so in that sense in the end, i don't think it's going to change that much in terms of his mom see. but the perception in the arab world has not changed of him. >> rose: his attitude about alcohol and other islamic questions. where does that stand today and

does that feed into this at all? hugh? >> i think that inside turkey did make a big difference to the level of arrange in the middle class turk her minded middle class in istanbul and it happened two weeks before these protests broke out. i mean it was just regular, probably no more severe you would find in some american states. but the point was it was unexpected and something that the prime minister was ready to link not only to what he calls developed countries but also to the rules of islam. ones you get rid of politics that certainly makes people feel queasy about possible impacts

considering many muslim characters believes i -- i lams alcohol which would never work in turkey. it happened while social media was still buzzing about anger over that. but i think in general, the question of erdogan stature is he brought turkey to its shiny image up until now. unfortunately the speafns -- speeches in the last couple days is very old fashion and sounds like a 190 defending his co- constituentsy. >> he doesn't make any friends

in the west either because the press has aligned with him, the pression gives direction for him, have essentially gone off the issue, which means the west. he came back and said the interest lobby was behind these events. well the financial sector presumably but not the financial sector in turkey but the international financial sector. the international system the west is trying to block turkey from improving, from develop from becoming a major part. again everybody's against us and the conspiracy theories are now everywhere about who started these things. and of course the culprit is always out side. >> rose: what kind of advice do you think he may be getting today in terms of the options he has and if in fact he says to his advisor i want this to go

away, i want to get past this, i have other thing to do so, what can he do. >> i think part of the problem is that the prime minister doesn't have too much in the way of trusted advisors. he has as henri said at the top of the interview he has yes men around him and he doesn't take advice. i think that when abdul left the foreign ministry to become the president, erdogan lost certain adult supervision, someone who could say, offer advice that provided some type of restraint on him but now it seems clear that he's off making his own decisions and he still commands obviously a tremendous amount of power in turkey and that's why we've had him making very very strong statements about the protesters and that's why we've seen the events that we did this

evening in which the police after laying back for a couple days in which there was a lull in the protests as a result of some of the things that the deputy prime minister and the president had said and done, prime minister erdogan returned to turkey and was determined to bring this to an end on his terms rather than through consensus and compromise. >> rose: thank you steven, thank you henri, thank you hugh, very much. i know it's later there. >> thank you. we're surviving. >> rose: good. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org