06/12/13 06/12/13 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> from pacifica, this is democracy now! when it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. that is not what this program is about. s e aclu sues the obama administration over its secret nsa phone spying program, we will look at how the government could use phone records to determine your friends, medical problems, business transactions and places you have been. our next guest, susan landau, a

mathematician, argues this metadata can be more dangerous than transcripts of actual conversations. then a debate on the man behind the leaked nsa documents. is edward snowden a hero or a traitor? >> it is getting to the point were you don't have to have done anything wrong, is simply have to eventually fall under suspicion, even by a wrong call, then they can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you have ever made, every friend you have ever discussed something with, and attacking on that basis to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer. >> we will speak with journalist chris hedges and geoffrey stone, the former dean of the university of chicago law school who hired barack obama to teach constitutional law in 1992. then 50 years ago today, civil- rights leader medgar evers was

gunned down in his driveway. we will speak with his widow myrlie evers. >> he was a man of all time, one was totally dedicated to freedom for everyone and was willing to pay a price. and he knew what that price was going to be. >> all of that and more coming up. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the obama administration has launched an internal review of the recent leaks that has exposed a series of government surveillance programs. the white house says its probe will focus on potential damages to national security. the move was announced in its new formal challenges to governments' buying and secrecy. a bipartisan group of senators has unveiled a measure that would declassify major decisions by courts operating under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, or fisa. the bill's co-sponsor,

democratic senator of oregon, said -- meanwhile, the american civil liberties union has filed a lawsuit challenging the secret program collecting the phone records of millions of americans. the aclu staff attorney said the suit is being brought to stop dragnet surveillance on a massive scale. >> a very real aspiration of the nsa we have learned is to essentially record the internet, to keep track of every time anyone says anything to anyone online, on the phone, through any kind of communication, and stored indefinitely and it government database in case of some point in the future it is important. that is not the role for government that our constitution sets out. they have every tool they need to fight terrorism, they don't need this one. >> key tech giant recently implicated in the revelations

have asked the u.s. government for permission to prove they have not enabled wholesale spying. on tuesday, google, facebook, and microsoft said they want to release information on how they respond to classified surveillance requests in response to the fallout over the surveillance program prism. according to the documents, the nsa uses prison to gather data on for internet users directly from the servers of the nine major firms. it is unlikely the government will grant the request. a former justice department prosecutor says he plans to file a class-action lawsuit today against all nine companies named in the leaked documents as prism participants. the nsa whistleblower edward snowden remains out of public view after leaving his hong kong hotel on monday. a report in a hong kong-based newspaper that he is tried to contact hong kong-based experts and lawyers for assistance as he faces the prospect a potential extradition efforts by the u.s. government. on tuesday, the private military

firm where snowden worked, booz allen hamilton, confirmed snowden has been fired. we will have more on the nsa spying revelations after headlines. the senate has overwhelmingly voted to take up the bipartisan immigration reform bill that would establish a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants while radically expanding border enforcement. the 84 to 15 vote will kick off what is expected to be a month- long debate on the bill's passage. at the white house, president obama urged lawmakers to send him legislation by the end of summer. >> the system is broken. to truly do with this issue, congress needs to act. they have a support abroad -- broad cross-section of leaders from every walk of life. so there is no reason congress cannot get this done by the end of summer. >> republican leaders followed the vote with a reminder their support for beginning debate does not mean final endorsement

of the bill's passage. republican co-sponsor marco rubio of florida is saying he will not support the bill unless the already strict orders occurred provisions are expanded. tuesday's vote saw a historic moment from democratic senator tim kaine of virginia. tim kaine spoke in favor of the immigration bill with a 15 minute speech entirely in spanish, the first ever on the senate floor. turkish riot police have forcibly removed throngs of protesters from istanbul's taksim square after nearly two weeks of demonstrations. beginning tuesday and lasting overnight, officers fired tear gas and water cannons into a crowd of thousands of people, forcing them to disperse. thousands of demonstrators also faced tear gas and water cannons in the capital ankara. it was the most violent police crackdown since the initial protest against the razing of an istanbul public park. the movement has since grown into a call for turkish prime minister erdogan's resignation

of what opponents call authoritarian and anti secular tendencies. turkish medics say around 5000 people have been treated for injuries since the unrest began. in a statement, amnesty international criticized the turkish government saying -- erdogan had previously agreed to meet with protest leaders in a meeting set for today. riot please continue to surround taksim square in a bid to prevent the demonstrators' return. people have been killed and a rebel attack on a village in eastern syria. the victims were reportedly shiite muslims fighting on the side of sarah president bashar al-assad. the syrian government is claiming the victims were mostly civilians. the obama administration is scaling back plans for trying guantanamo bay prisoners in military tribunals. guantanamo's top military

prosecutor says up to 20 prisoners will face tribunals, down from a previous estimate of 36. the move came in response to recent appeals court decision that rejected the prosecution of material support allegations retroactively. the number of 20 prosecutions means just 3% of all guantanamo bay prisoners to date will ever stand trial. in a statement, the legal charity reprieve said -- more than half of guantanamo's remaining prisoners have been cleared for release and over 100 are on a hunger strike. at least 17 people living killed in afghanistan in a suicide attack outside the country's top court. the bomber hit a bus full of afghan supreme court employees. dozens were wounded. the attack comes as the u.n. has

disclosed afghan civilian deaths are again on the rise. last year marked the first time in six years that killings of afghan civilians declined. but on tuesday, u.n. envoy jan kubis said killings have jumped 24%, with over 3000 killed in the first half of 2013. unfortunately,te too to the increased operations, perhaps prompted also by the activities of the insurgency as , thered in their campaign civilians in the country and conflict related civilian casualties are indeed not going in the right direction. >> according to the u.n., militants were responsible for 74% of the federal attacks.

the taliban has reportedly agreed to hold talks with the u.n. on the issue of civilian deaths. around 300 workers on strike for better pay at a nike factory in cambodia have lost their jobs. a union spokesperson said the fired workers dismissal letters cited their involvement in the strike, which seeks a wage hike of $14 a month. although the vast majority of the factory's 5000 murders have taken part in the strike, many have begun returning to work after over three weeks off the job. it is the 48th strike by cambodian garment workers this year, more than in the entire years of 2010 or 2011. the trial of army whistleblower bradley manning continues at fort meade, maryland. on tuesday, his aunt testified he told her of his initial hope the video he released a u.s. helicopter shooting dead iraqi civilians would become big news in the united states. prosecutors also elicited more testimony about wikileaks founder julian assange a marine

corps security expert testified he attended a 2009 conference where he said julian assange tried to encourage the release of secret military and corporate information. planned parenthood and the aclu have filed a lawsuit challenging an alabama law they say could shut down most of the state's abortion clinics. the measure would force doctors at the five clinics to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital, a step the lawsuit notes can be impossible for abortion providers because some hospitals oppose abortion. the law is set to take effect next month. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. >> welcome to all our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. the american civil liberties union sued the obama administration on tuesday over the national security agency's secret program to vacuum up on records of millions of americans.

the lawsuit comes less than one week after the guardian and the washington post revealed the existence of a secret court ruling ordering verizon to hand over daily records of its business customers. this is an aclu attorney. >> this program is a massive and unprecedented grab of information by the intelligence agency. they are sweeping up or tracking literally every call made in this country. the constitution simply does not allow the government to do that. if it has a reason to suspect a particular american of wrongdoing, then the government should target that person for investigation or surveillance but not indiscriminately sweep up calls of millions of innocent americans. >> the disclosure of the secret program was based on information leaked by edward snowden, a former cia employee who most recently worked inside the nsa's hawaii office for the private firm booz allen hamilton. on friday, president obama confirmed the existence of the

surveillance program. >> when it comes to telephone calls, and nobody is listening to your telephone calls. that is not what this program is about. what thedicated intelligence community is doing andooking at the numbers durations of calls, not looking at people's names and not looking at content. the so-ifting through called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. -- if theolks intelligence community wants to listen to a phone call, they have to go back to a federal judge just like they would in a criminal investigation.

so i want to be very clear. some of the hype that we have been hearing over the last day or so, nobody is listening to the content of people's phone calls. >> what president obama insisted nobody is listening to your telephone calls, many cybersecurity experts say the metadata being collected by the government may be far more revealing than the actual content of the phone calls. joining us now from washington, d.c. is susan landau, mathematician and former sun microsystems engineer. she is the author of the book, "surveillance or security? the risks posed by new wiretapping technologies." she received a guggenheim fellowship in 2012. susan landau, welcome to democracy now! this may surprise many people, this point that metadata, just the fact of a phone call, if you called, perhaps where you made the call, can be more revealing than a transcript of the conversation itself.

>> that is right. that is because the metadata of a phone call tells what you do as opposed to what you say. for example, if you call from the hospital when you're getting a mammogram and later in the day your doctor calls you and then you call the surgeon and when you're at the surgeon's office you call your family, it is pretty clear looking at that pattern of calls there has been some bad news. inthere is a tight vote congress and some is wavering on the edge, you discover they're talking to the opposition, you know which way they're above is going. one of my favorite examples is when some sun microsystems was purchased by oracle, there were a number of calls made the week before. the sierra's talk to each other and probably they both talk to their chief counsels and maybe they talk to each other again, the to other people in charge. the calls go back and forth very quickly, very tightly, then you know what is going to happen.

you know with the announcement is one of the monday morning even though you have not heard the content. the medicaid is remarkably revealing. >> john negroponte, the nation's first director of fashion intelligence under president george w. bush, has defended the surveillance program in the collection of metadata. he described metadata as "like knowing what is on the outside of an envelope." susan landau, your response to that? >> that is not really true. that was the case when we had black telephones that weighed several pounds and sat on the living room table and you knew there was a phone call from one house to another house. not everybody carries cellphones with them. so the data, when i call you, i know i'm talking to you but i've no idea where you are. the phone company who has the data now, and that is far more revealing than what is on the outside of an envelope. as i said earlier, it is what you do, not what you say. because we're a caring

cellphones and making calls all during the day, it is very regulatory. >> can you explain the significance of location data? can the government's map a person's whereabouts through this metadata? >> of course. politics is four data points to be 95% sure who the person is -- all it takes is four data points to be 95% sure who the person is. you know who it is you're listening to. you follow somebody and they make calls from work every day and one day you notice they made calls from a bar at the end of the day. then you discover somebody of middle age, someone who ought to be working, is making calls only from home. you know they have been fired, even though you have not listened to the content of the calls. >> i want ask about the comments of the director of national intelligence, james clapper, coming under increasing scrutiny

under comments he made to the senate over the government's surveillance program. in march, democratic senator ron wyden questioned clapper about the nsa. >> does the nsa collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans? >> no, sir. >> it does not. >> not wittingly. there are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly. >> director of nash intelligence james clapper is holding his head as he is responding to questions from senator ron wyden in march. during an interview this week with nbc, james clapper defended his response saying he had answered the question in the "least untruthful manner." meanwhile, on tuesday, senator wyden called for public hearings to investigate the scope of the nsa's surveillance of americans. wyden said --

susan landau, translate what james clapper said. >> he said that we're not getting -- the nsa was not getting data on millions of americans. but given that verizon and the other telecoms were also sending this information and were sending it daily, that does not appear to be true. what we don't know, we don't know a lot of things. one thing we don't know is the kind minimization the nsa did on the data. if we do a criminal wiretap, you're required to do what is called minimization. you can listen to the call, but if it is not the target of the investigation, if it is not the criminal him or herself as say their teenage daughter, then you have to shut down the wiretap and you can pick up again in a couple of minutes. if it is the criminal but

they're talking about going to the store, unless you think that is code to pick up some heroin, you have to shut it down. we don't know several things. first of all, there was a secret interpretation of a law and that has no place in a democracy. but we also don't know what kind of data minimization the nsa was doing, and that is something that ought to come out of public hearings. that is very different from exposing sources. >> the secret court order to obtain verizon phone records was sought by the fbi under a section of the form intelligence surveillance act that was expanded by the patriot act. in 2011, democratic senator ron wyden warned about how the government was interpreting its surveillance powers under section 215 of the patriot act. >> when the american people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the patriot act, they are going to be stunned and they are going to be angry. and they are going to ask

senators, did you know what this law actually permits? why didn't you know before you voted on at? the fact is, anyone can read the plain text of the patriot act and yet many members of congress have no idea how the law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch because that interpretation is classified. it is almost as if there were two patriot act and many members of congress have not read the one that matters. our constituents, of course, are totally in the dark. members of the public have no access to the secret legal interpretation, so they have no idea what their government believes the law actually means. >> susan landau, that was senator ron wyden. could you comment on what he said? >> i actually had members of the press, after his speech and say, what is he talking about in section 215? i literally had no idea because

it did not occur to me, and maybe that is my being ie. the government could be collecting the data under secret interpretation. he is talking about that collection of metadata and alluding to how extremely powerful if it is. currently, our laws, wiretapping laws which were passed when funds did not move back in the 1960's and 1970's, those wiretap laws protect content. you need a wiretap order to get content. the protect the metadata -- the wind, what time, how long they call was for, location, much less strongly. that needs to be changed. an bill was reported, updated version of the bill was reported earlier this year. that is what senator wyden is alluding to. the fact the metadata, now that we carried cellphones and payphones essentially do not exist, so one has to rely on

cellphones, senator wyden as saying, that information is very private and reveals a remarkable amount about what a person is doing, who they are, who now associate with, whom they spend their nights with, where they are when they travel -- all that kind of information deserves constitutional protection. under a secret interpretation of the law, it is in fact being handed over to the government. that is what senator wyden as saying. >> people like senator feinstein are calling for an investigation into what edward snowden has done. we are about to have a debate on whether he is a traitor or hero. what do you think of what snowden has done, and what do you think needs to be done? where should the investigation take place? >> the first thing is, what do i think of what edward snowden has done. i think of myself as a computer science, not a policy or legal expert. i don't know what i would have

done in issues, but i do know what he has done has opened a public debate about something that should and public many, many years ago. we cannot have secret interpretations of law in a democracy. i think things -- i think there needs to be to investigations. i think feinstein is right, but i would target things differently. i think it is time for a church- type committee investigation under perhaps the judiciary committee and senator leahy, but we need an examination of the surveillance loss. and what we're doing, what we're doing it, what was done illegally, and so on. it needs to be a broad investigation, the same way it was done in the 1970's under the church committee. >> susan landau, author of the book, "surveillance or security? the risks posed by new wiretapping technologies." guggenheimd a

fellowship in 2012. when we come back, a debate on what edward snowden has done. traitor or hero? stay with us. ♪ [music break]

>> this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. >> we turn now to a debate on edward snowden's decision to leak a trove of secret documents outlining the nsa's surveillance program. in an interview with the guardian newspaper, snowden described why he risked his

career to leak the documents. >> i think the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic mode. when you are subverting the power of government, that is a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy. and if you do that in secret consistently, as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it will kind of give its officials a mandate to go, tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the public is on our side. they rarely if ever do that when an abuse occurs. that falls to individual citizens, but they're typically maligned. it becomes a thing of, these people are against the country, against the government. but i am not. i am no different from anyone else but i don't have special skills. i am just another guy who sits there day to day in the office and watches what is happening and goes, this is something that

is not our place to decide. the public needs to decide whether these policies are right or wrong. i am willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, i did not change these or modify the story. this is the truth, this is what is happening and you should decide whether we need to be doing this. >> edward snowden's actions have elicited a range of reactions. writes --obin dianne feinstein said that snowden should not be considered a whistle-blower because "what he did was an act of treason." and republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina tweeted -- the language echoes with senator gramm was set in the hunt for osama bin laden. rushkoffile, douglas wrote on cnn --

the editor of the american conservative wrote -- and pentagon papers whistleblower daniel ellsberg said -- for more we hosted debate on edward snowden -- is the hero or criminal? whistle-blower or traitor? here in new york we're joined by chris hedges, senior fellow at the nation institute. he was part of a team of reporters that was awarded a pulitzer prize in 2002 for the paper's coverage of global terrorism. his author along with the cartoonist joe sacco the new

york times best-seller "days of destruction, days of revolt." in chicago, illinois, we're joined by geoffrey stone, a professor at the university chicago law school. his recent piece for the huffington post is called, "edward snowden: hero or traitor?" he served as an informal adviser to president obama in 2008. in 1992, 20 years ago, prof. stone hired obama to teach constitutional law at the university of chicago. he is also author of many books including "top secret: when our government keeps us in the dark." chris hedges and geoffrey stone, we welcome you both to democracy now! profs down, i want to begin with you. in your piece you say edward snowden's actions were criminal. can you explain why you feel he should be in jail? >>l, there is a federal

statute that makes it a crime for public employees who have been granted access to classified information to reveal that information to persons or unauthorized to receive it. from a straightforward legal standpoint, there is no question snowden's violated the law. from that standpoint, if tried, he will be convicted and he is in fact from that perspective a criminal. whether one admires what it is another question, but it does not have anything to do with whether what he did was unlawful. what he deserves punishment? he said in a clip earlier, i'm just an ordinary guy. he is an ordinary guy with absolutely no expertise and public policy or law our national security. he is a techie. he made his own decision without any authorization or approval by the american people to reveal classified information about which he had absolutely no expertise in terms of the danger

to the nation, the value of the information to national- security. that was a completely irresponsible and dangerous thing to do. whether we think it was positive in the long run or not is a separate question, but was clearly criminal. >> chris hedges, your response? >> the debate is about whether we will have a free press left or not. if there are no snowdens remainings there will be no free press. forgetpress -- let's not that snowden gave this to the guardian. it was filtered through a press organization in a classic way whistleblowers provide public information about unconstitutional and criminal activity by their government to the public. so the notion he is just an individual standing up and releasing stuff over the internet is false. but more importantly, what he has exposed essentially shows that anybody who reaches out to

the press to expose fraud, crimes, and constitutional activity can be -- unconstitutional activity can be shut down. that is what is frightening. we're at a situation now, and i speak as a former investigative reporter for the new york times, by which any investigation into the inner workings of government has become impossible. that is the real debate. >> huddie respond to the points that geoffrey stone made and how snowden identified himself as an ordinary guy? should any regular government employee or contractor be allowed to disclose whatever information he fills the public ought to be privy to whether it is classified by the government or not? >> that is an act of conscience -- that is what an act of conscience is orders live off of

people who within systems of power have a conscience to expose activities by the power elite which are criminal in origin or unconstitutional, and that is precisely what he did. he did it in the traditional way, which is going to a journalist -- glenn greenwald and the garden -- and having a vetted by the publication of four was put out. was a criminal? yes, i guess in a technical sense it was criminal, but said it is the larger crime that is being committed by the state. when you have a system by which criminals are in power, criminals on wall street are able to carry out massive fraud with no kinds of repercussions or serious regulation or investigation, criminal to torture in our black sites, criminals who carry out targeted assassinations, those who like to the american public to prosecute pre-emptive war --

which under international law is illegal -- if you are a street legal list as apparently prof. stone is, in essence you are protecting criminal activity. i would argue and large sections of our government, it is the criminals who are in power. >> your response? >> first of all, so far as i can tell from everything that has been revealed, there's absolutely nothing illegal or criminal about these programs. they may beat terrible public policy and i'm not sure i approve at all, but the claim they are illegal is why the premature. from the standpoint of what has been released so far whether mr. hedges like to vermont or snowdon like sadr not, these are not unconstitutional or illegal programs. >> that may go to a letter you cosign, prof. stone, in 2006 with other prominent attorneys about nsa surveillance under president bush. you were criticizing it and wrote --

how do you compare that to what we see today? >> they are two completely different programs. wasbush andsecond program in defiance to the surveillance act. the obama program was approved by congress. second, the bush program involved wiretapping of the contents of phone conversations. the supreme court has long held that is a violation of the fourth amendment. the obama program does not involve wiretapping, but phone

numbers. the supreme court has long held the government is allowed to obtain phone records, bank records, library records, purchase records want to disclose that information to a third party. they are two completely different programs. >> but if you just heard our conversation with susan landau, she argues oftentimes metadata is more revealing than the transcript of an actual conversation. do you think the law should change to include this metadata? >> i am not persuaded by her argument that it is more revealing. i do believe is problematic and i think in fact there should be statutes that prohibit the gareth during of this type of data by private entities as well as by the government in the absence of compelling justification. i would certainly want to see it differently. but in terms of what a lot is, it is not illegal and it is

completely different from what the bush demonstration was doing. >> chris hedges, do you agree? >> there are plenty of lawyers to disagree. >> not many. >> well, the aclu just issued a lawsuit over claiming this is a violation of the fourth amendment. i have not done a poll. but clearly, they cannot hold its head high. there are a few out there. stone, were you on the board of the aclu? >> i'm on the national bosra council. >> so what you think of them suing the government over this? >> i think it is great. they're perfectly right to bring the question. their job is to challenge whether or not things are constitutional. that is what they should be doing. it does not mean they're always right, but they should be presenting these questions to the court. >> chris hedges, one of the

problems people appointed to is there are no procedures are mechanisms in place for people within the government to point out wrongdoing when it does occur. do you think that is one of the problems that has occurred in this case with edward snowden, or for that matter, your most recent argumenarticle was on bry manning? >> we used to be able to tell our sources they would be protected. and it would not be investigated for providing information that exposed the inner workings of power. unfortunately, the press, like most institutions in this country has largely collapsed under this corporate coup d'etat that is taken place and no longer functioning. what this is finally a debate about is whether we're going to have through the press and independent institution within this country that can examine the inner workings of power or not. us have many of

suspected this widespread surveillance, but now that it is confirmed, we are seeing snowden came out publicly because i think he knew they would find out anyway because they have all of glenn greenwald's emails, phone records, and everything else. they can quickly find out who he was speaking to. and whether snowden had contact with. i speak as reporter, that is terrifying because it essentially shut down any ability to counter the official propaganda and the official narrative and expose the crimes. and we have seen in the last few years, tremendous crimes being committed by those in power. we have no ability now to investigate. >> professor, let me ask about the reporters should be prosecuted. anderson cooper put this question to republican congress member peter king of new york last night. >> as far as reporters who

helped rebuild these programs, do you think something should happen to them, should they be punished as well? >> if they willingly new this was classified affirmation, i think actions should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude. think there is an obligation both moral and legal i believe against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromised national security. >> prof. stone, your response to what peter king is saying? >> he is just wrong the supreme court in the pentagon case for example, made clear while daniel ellsberg to be prosecuted as a public official stealing information that the new york times and the washington post could not be restrained from publishing that information, the court essentially held all the government can control classified information at its source by prohibiting employees from revealing it, once the

permission goes out, it cannot then punish the press for publishing it. it is a little odd as assistant. yet it is, we have the freedom of the press and on the other hand the government has a legitimate interest in maintaining confidentiality of the source within the government itself. clearly, greenwald and reuters and so on, none of those can be published -- punished. >> prof. stone, to believe edward snowden's position is comparable to dannel ellsberg's position at the pentagon papers and the guardian played a comparable roll to the new york times? >> i think snowden's position based on what i know now is worse. ellsberg revealed historical information that had really no appreciable threat to the national security. it was all old information about what the government had done in the past. what snowden has revealed is

information about ongoing programs, which we're told, are extremely important national- security and told the revelation of those programs makes them far less efficient. that is potentially serious harm to the nation. that was not the case in dannel ellsberg's situation. >> henry kissinger said daniel ellsberg was the most dangerous man in america, so at that time they certainly were telling us that what he was doing was threatening national security. >> he said that at the time before they had an opportunity to really reflect on what was released. years later -- even weeks later, that was no longer the case. i think those two situations are not remotely comparable in terms of the harm that ellsberg did the the country, which i think was trivial relative to what snowden has done, which arguably is far more serious. that may make another point about civil liberties. it is important to understand if you want to protect civil

liberties, you not only have to protect them, protect against terrorism. what will destroy civil liberties in this country more effectively than anything else as another 9/11 attack. if the government is not careful about that and we have more attacks like that, you can be sure the kind of things the government are doing now will be regarded as small potatoes compared to what would happen in the future. it is very complicated asking what, done to protect civil liberties in the country. >> i do not buy this argument that this hurts national security. i covered al qaeda for the new york times. believe me, they know they're being monitored. the whole idea that it comes as a great surprise to jihadist groups that were emails, websites and phone calls are being tracked is absurd. we're talking about the whole cell collection of information on virtually most of the american public, and the consequences of that are truly

terrifying. at that point, we are in essence snuffing out the capacity of any kind of investigation into the inner workings of power. and to throw out this notion that this harmed national security, there is no evidence for that in the same way there is no evidence the information that bradley manning leaked in any way harmed national security. it did not. what the security and surveillance state is doing is playing on fear. and using that fear to accrue to themselves tremendous forms of awer that in a civil society, democracy, they should never have. that is the battle under way right now, and, frankly, we are losing. >> i want to ask you to reflect on martin luther king's letter from the birmingham jail when he said, one who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community

over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. could respond to that? >> obviously, king is right that the question is whether it is an unjust law. people who violate a law because they think it is and just do not necessarily fit into the letter from the birmingham jail. king was talking about protesting racial segregation. that is a little different in terms of the moral status. maybe it is true. maybe chris hedges is right and snowden is a hero and maybe this is all a fraud on the part of the government that this information serves no useful purpose, fundamental and important u.s. has been revealed. maybe it is true. if it is, i will be the first to say snowden is a hero. at the moment, i have no reason to believe that. to say some people act on legitimate conscience and therefore violate unjust laws is not to say that everyone who violates a lot is martin luther

king in the birmingham jail. >> i want ask you, geoffrey stone, if you were edward snowden's attorney, what arguments would you put forward for him right now? don't think he has, honestly, i don't think he has any legal arguments that could be a defense to the charge he violated the law about government contractors not disclosing classified information to persons not authorized to receive it. i don't think he has a defense. some people commit a crime and they commit a crime >> interestingly, dan ellsberg faced treason trial but ultimately, he ended up being exonerated because of the illegal wiretapping that was done of him. >> he was not eneted.

and this case, the judge dropped the charges against him because the nixon administration searched his psychiatrist's office in violation of the constitution, and the judge concluded that was prosecutorial misconduct and therefore dismissed the prosecution. if the government does something similar in snowden's case and the court finds it is a violation of his constitutional rights in the course of investigation and dismisses the charges, that would be something as his lawyer i would want to know. but on the merits of the charges as they presently stand, i think is a sentencing question, not a criminality question reque. >> if you could respond? snowdenut figures like or julian assange or bradley manning, essentially, the blinds are drawn. we have no window into what is being done in our name, including the crimes being done in our name.

the life blood of my work our figures like these who had the moral courage to stand up and name the crimes that they witnessed. and these people are always at the moment that they stand up, and even king was% -- if announced, handled by j. edgar hoover who attempted through black out to get him to commit suicide before accepting the nobel prize, let's not forget all of these figures like snowden, under this character assassination, which, frankly, i think professor stone is engaging in. that is not uncommon. that is what comes with the territory when you carry out an act of conscience. it is a very lonely and frightening -- and it makes these figures like snowden deeply courageous because the whole debate, a trader or whistleblower, for me, hearing is on the press, watching the commit suicide.

without those figures, there is no press. >> i want to end with prof. stone, you were in early adviser to president obama and gave him his first job at university chicago law school, the dean at the university of chicago law school. what would you advise him today? a i think there needs to be really careful re-evaluation of the classification system. there is no question we wildly over classified and that creates all sorts of problems both for the press and the ability of the government to keep secrets. if you try to keep everything secret, you do not effectively keep very much secret. i think there is a serious question about how we make the trade-off between security and privacy, and i think that is an issue that needs to be addressed carefully. certainly, within the demonstration and the government. to the extent there are

generally dull-generally secret policies that need to be kept secret and i think that does not immunize them from serious debate response of all people within the four corners of the administration, bringing in people who cannot national security clearances to take the devil's advocate position and challenge the administration. i think there's a lot that can and should be done, and i think it is easy to get swept up in the notion of security being the be all, and all. this is a nation committed to freedom of the press, freedom of speech and those values need to be respected. i think the government has to be examining itself. all the temptations are in the wrong direction. >> i want to ask about an article you wrote in 2011 for the new york times. you wrote --

what is your assessment of the comments he made then relative to now and obama's record on transparency and civil liberties? >> i think the comment was correct and incorrect today. i think there is a temptation on the part of public officials to basically say, we don't to be hassled or bothered or criticized, so we will just do what is in the best interest of the country and we don't have to tell anybody about it. i except that i passionately believe it, does not mean everything the government does incompetents and in secret should not be incumbents or secret. the problem is where to draw the line. i would criticize the obama ministration in general for being over the concerned with secrecy and not being

sufficiently transparent. the point i made earlier about over classification is a good example. but at the same time i recognize there situations in which secretly -- secrecy is critical and ability to discern when it is necessary and not come in to do that any people within the debate who are internally challenging the necessity for secrecy and confidentiality. i don't think obama administration has done a good job of that. >> chris hedges, i know your trial. attending the bradley manning >> we are talking about the death of a free press, the death of a civil society. this is far beyond a reasonable debate. we make the east german state look like the boy scouts but if we do not wrest back this power for privacy, for the capacity to investigate what our power elite is doing, i think we can essentially say our democracy has been snuffed out. >> chris hedges and geoffrey stone, thank you for being with

us. wrote -- "edward snowden: hero or traitor?" chris hedges, foreign correspondent part of the team that won a pulitzer prize for global terrorism reporting but we go back 50 years ago today when we come back, went medgar evers was assassinated. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

>> this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. >> we end today's show remembering the life of african american civil rights activist medgar evers. in the early 1960's, he served as the first naacp field secretary for mississippi, where he were to end segregation and fought for voter rights. the 37 year-today old organizer was assassinated in his driveway. >> i recently caught up with his widow, myrlie evers, a dinner here in new york and asked her how people should remember her

husband for whom she sought justice for some years. >> what i would encourage people to do is to go online and find out as much as they can about go, his contributions, to to believe it or not, to their library and do research, and to say to them that he was a man of all times, one totally dedicated to freedom for everyone and was willing to pay the price. and he knew that price was going to be, but he was willing to pay it. as he said in his speeches, i love my wife and i love my children and i want to create a better life for them and all women and all children, regardless of race, creed, or color. he knew what was going happen. he did not want to die, but he

was willing to take the risk. >> talk about where he was coming from that night that he was killed in your driveway. a massas coming from two or three had times a week, actually. there was a meeting after that session, and he was on his way home. i know how weary he was because he got out of his car in the driveway next to the road where the assassin was waiting, and we have determined quite some time that we should always get out on the other side of the

car. and that night, he got out on the driver's side with an armful of t-shirts that said "jim crow must go." him in hisstruck back, ricocheted throughout his he lasted 30 minutes after that. the doctors said they did not know how he did. but he was determined to live. his body is not here, but he still lives. i am very happy, proud, and pleased to have played a part in making the country. >> ramarley evers, 50 years ago today, june 12, 1963, her husband, the civil-rights leader medgar evers, 37 years old, was assassinated in his driveway in jackson, mississippi. that does it for our broadcast. democracy now! is looking for

feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!] democracy now!]

♪ ♪ ♪