this is what first interested me about the writing of george orwell, there's a symbiosis about those who maybe don't like the empire or armed services but you were brought up in that milieu, as orwell was, and at least they admire the flinty values, the maurbl virtues, the thrift, the sense of duty and. >> rose: and you? >> these are virtues that can be useful in all circumstances. >> rose: you're saying that's you. >> absolutely. i won't say i exemplified them-- that would be a lie-- but i have a respect for them. and an interesting thing i noticed-- >> rose: including discipline. >> yes. and the willingness to stick by a conviction as well. >> rose: churchill in fact said if you've never been shot at and missed then you've never lived. >> yes, actually he says there's no sense of exhilaration, the sensation of being shot at without result. and i think i mentioned that in my book. i was once with the great george burns who i think is the greatest war correspondent in our time. >> rose: bureau chief of the "new york times". >> he was showing me around sarajevo. somebody did take a sh

last year, judt was awarded the george orwell prize for intelligence, insight and conspicuous courage. over the years he was a great friend of this program as a guest and a guest host. in september of 2008 tony judt was diagnosed with a.l.s. it is an affliction that he described as progressive imprisonment without parole. over the past 18 months, he dictated dozens of essays and on edz, wrote two books and delivered from memory his last lecture to an auditorium of n.y.u. students. his words that night were recently turned into his last book. it is a petition for the future, a rallying cry for renewing social democracy. as his illness took its toll, tony lost the ability to walk, to type, and speaking became a struggle. three weeks ago, eight days before he died, i visited tony at his home in greenwich village to talk about his work, his ideas, and also about dying. it was an interview that neither of us knew would be his last. for some, this will be hard to watch, but it is a conversation he wanted to have and to share. it is about an illness. it is about facing death. and yet it is a

we've actually put a stop to that now >>russell: when george orwell penned his famous novel, 1984, even he couldn't have predicted the extent to which his words would ring true in the 21st century. and yet here in the heart of london, where the author once lived, there are more than ten and a half thousand digital eyes spying on its citizens and that's just the ones funded by the home office. in reality there are probably more than amillion cameras watching these streets. >>reporter: some $300million of public funds has been spent on cctv in london over the last decade that figure rising to nearly $800million across the uk.... but according to an internal police report released last year the technology is failing to have a significant impact, with only one crime detected each year per 1000 cameras amounting to what some say is an almost criminal waste of public money. >>farrier: of course a massive amount of money has been wasted on cctv, at least ú500million of public money. now what would have happened if you'd used that ú500million to do something that actuallydoes works? for instanc

like george orwell says in 1984, in his book, these wars are not being fought to be won, they're being fought to be continued. and you, ma'am, i don't know, you're a per pet tuor of war also. and it's ashame that we're in this condition now that this country has not heeded the warnings of the forefathers, not heeded the warnings of people wiser presidents than the ones we have now. guest: if you look at what's comprized the u.s. grand strategy for the last half century post world war ii, it is a bipartisan president of both political parties has basically commited the united states to global commitments and treaty responsibilities and securities around the world. presidents who didn't want to get involved, for example, president clinton did not want to get involved in bosnia and had too commit military forces and the government to that effort, if you look at what the united states actually does around the world, we are a global country with global commitments and global responsibilities. now, if the u.s., if the president says we don't need to do this any more, if he wants to abandon c

i can't believe in that myth, but maybe i read george orwell's 1984 once too many times. it is going to take about 30 years until we have just a total surveillance of everybody everywhere unless there is strong intervention. what is going to happen to the city council when the people who manufacture the devices get hold of them through lobbyists? i'm pessimistic about the whole thing and there are large sectors of the society who don't believe in any privacy for anybody anywhere. so, are you part of the effort to stop this kind of thing, and do you see that maybe we can bring it under control? guest: your concerns are well-founded. this is the objection that the judges are raising. what are the limits on the government installing these in a routine case, a noncriminal case? to watch people that maybe the government doesn't like or political enemy he is or any abuse. that is absolutely the very serious concern that is motivating the view that a warrant should be required in this setting. in fact, in the 1983 supreme court opinion i discussed earli earlier, the defendant in