I am the codirector of the liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for justice. Welcome to the days Panel Discussion on government secrecy and the fourth estate. The impetus for the event is a publication of rich schwarzenegger new book. Democracy in the dark. And the said you can of government seek see. This is achieve council and so much more than that. And for he has had a fascinating career in and out of public service. No part of that career is more important, and more intriguing than his role as chief council on the Church Committee in the 1970s. As you all know, the committee exposed wide fraed intelligence abuses and led to the complete overhaul of how intelligence operations are structured and over seen in this country. The Church Committee also produced another result which is that it shed light on the nature of government secrecy. And this became a live long study of fritz which has culminated in this wonderful book. So i will ask them to come up here. To speak about the book. And then i will invite the panelists up for the free foirm discussion on one of the themes of the book. The role of journalism as counter weight of government secrecy. Fritz . [applause] thank you very much liza. I should say that this nice title of the book was not my idea. It was li zas idea. She is a good woman. And thank you all for coming. And thanks to the board chair of the Brennan Center who donate. Bought. And donated the books out there. Which are available and are being given away. I want to start with a confession about my work on the Church Committee. I did not pay very much attention to the secrecy when i was worker to the Church Committee. I paid attention to secrets. My drive and my push was to expose as much as we could to make people angry. And concerned. Because i believed that we could not get reform. Up less people were upset and bothered so i did not think very much about seek see. I started to do that later. And i did a whole lot in five years of working on this book. The book is about secrecy. But you cant talk about the secrecy but also talk about the journalism and openness. And nupdz particularly. They are the key. Have been the key throughout history to the openness. A few themes about the book. My usual talk about the book is 20 minutes. I will try to make it like 7 minutes here. What are the big themes . Dooch too much second see. Too much. The some of the government secrecy is in hes and the people that do not appreciate that as the house committee. Parallel to the Church Committee did not. They are going to fail. And too much secrecy will hide the embarrassment and legality. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the reason that we have the mountains ever growing mountains. A hundred million documents marked secrets now about 20 each year. About 20 million declassified and they are growing and growing. The reason that we have so many documents is not simply because there are some legitimate secrets and there are some secrets designed to protect the embarrassment and legal tlichlt are some reasons for secrecy. Lethargj and fear. And ambition. For example. Many of the people now, in order to have their documents noticed will range to have the document to be top secret. So it is not lost in the blizzards and the avalanches of the papers and the blizzards and bites that would otherwise swamp it. Another point that is contrary to the conventional wisdom is that classcation is going to be by no means the only secrecy problem. Let me give a couple of examples of that. For 180 years, president s believed that they owned their documents and took the documents and destroyed them if they wanted to. Or kept them from the public for 150 years as the john adams family did. Or sole the documents back to the government. Though they had produced documents working for the government. That was nothing to do with the classcation but just a tradition. It lasted until Richard Nixon when the president ial records act was passed and interestingly. In light of the recent controversies the president s after the records act reagan. Hw bush and clinton all argued that emails were not covered by the president ial records act. They were not document. They lost those cases. The coffins of arriving from foreign wars that dover base in delaware. Not allowed to be photographed until barack obama and gates changed that rule. That had nothing to do with the classcation. The white house meetings. Meeting thats are confidential but meetings if they bring together only a code of like minded people do not produce the kind of discussion that is important and valuable for a president to have. That has nothing to do with classcation but it is a real problem of secrecy. Dick cheney to pick on him for a minute. Secrecy is not apart san issue. As much as republicans and the churchs committees most important findings were that lisa mentioned. 6 administrations from Franklin Roosevelt and richard nix only. Four democrats and two republicans. They all abused their secret powers. But cheney understood the idea of president ial meetings, not being a secret. Not being just a collection of people that just had the same views. When he was achieve of staff to president ford fought mightily to have conflicting views from the administration that would be presented before a decision was made. When he became vice president. He had a different view of how president ial meetings should be organized. And they would be best if there was just himself and george bush. That is wellknown. Something that is not known and for the first time is published in the book is that in the decent from the irancontra report he said that a wise white house should make sure not to have excessive secrecy. And more importantly than that, a wise white house should have what he called democratic persuasion so that if you had a difficult issue of National Security or of Foreign Policy you will publicly discuss the pros and the conversations. That also disappeared when cheney was with the vice president. I would bring this up first. It is interesting and second the book is in the first place ever to find it and third. Tv is interesting that the very good reporters that covered the irancontra never found that little anything net cheneys decent. Nor did anyone go back to read the decent of 78 when he came to be vice president. So when reporters generally find everything. This is a good example of where they didnt there is a title of the book. I will say a little bit of what the book will say about democracy. And the dark. And what it says about journalists. The problem really here. With seek see. Is not that it would conceal allegeality or conceals the embarrassment but excessive cease secrecy. Is profoundly undemocratic. So to get back to the hymns of the declaration of independence. And the address. In the declaration that jefferson said adjust government drives the legitimacy from the consent of the government cannot consent unless they are informed to the maximum extent possible. And lincoln in the gettysburg address finishes by saying we resolve that the government of the people. The by the people. And for the people shall not perish from this earth. You cant have a government by the people unless again the people are reasonably it to the maximum extent possible involved. Form reasons not informed adequately today. The believe that there is no public that is capable there. Are others as well. A little bit about newspapers and some of the points that i found interesting in the book. In early america. Newspapers. Were stressed as vital democrat okay crassy. And madison said that the Public Opinion in the democracy is the real sovereign and then the Congress Passed the post office act that subsidized newspaper thats would be vital to our earlier history. And vital to the first 150 years of history. By the 1830s. 90 of the volume. By weight. Of materials that went through the post were newspapers and only about 12 of the revenue came from newspapers. That the u. S. Congress established. At the end of the 19th send furry. There were about in 1870s. 500 new daily newspaperses by the century. There was like 2300 daily newspapers. Tocqueville thought that the newspapers were the key to the success of american democracy. In all of the earlier years, the newspapers provided a benefit to the country of die fusion of information. Today there are plenty of other ways the information gets spread about. There is die fusion of information. Plenty are discovery of information. Bart gelman in his thinking. And speaking and writing about the subject said that when he um sees a classcation stamp that he thinks of it as a yellow light and not a red light. And the government very fortunately for the going government it lost the pentagon papers case. They are far better off today that they lost that case than they would have been had they won it. The newspapers are willing and able to check in with the government that is details in the story will not inadvertently reveal say the identity of the agent in egypt or Something Like that. That done. That is sort of what he meant by the met for the yellow light and not a red light that is a good practice. As long as journals do not wait too long or lose their vigor because they are checking on whether a particular story will inadvertently do something that they would not want to do. The New York Times held that story that came out in december of 05 for the whole year. And i this i that was too long. But if that practice is done for a short time, it is okay. So we have to worry about the future of investigative journalism. Will it survive given practicing good investigative journalism. Maybe a few newspaper and is that enough or a few National Stories and not for local stories i want to finish with just onant let or anecdote or fact. I was told at a conference about a conference from the pentagon. Panel. I was on the pan. We talked about he is the ed that they got the manning documents from wikileaks. He signed a group of 50 people that worked for four weeks to vet that material. That is a heck of an expense. So till straights how that ared may be for journalism to continue to do the Vital Service of delivering the discovery of the information. Which is he sent yes, maam to the continuation of the democracy. So thank you all. [applause] i would like to invite the panelistes to come up to the panel and as i do so. I will introduce our moderators. Steve, is a director of the government secrecy project at the federation of american scientists. Which will rework the secrecy. And promoting Public Access to government information. We dont have a program here. We dont have a written program. So the full accomplishments. And awards. Can be found on the web site. And i will just briefly. Because it is going to take too long. I will mention the fact that steve is the author of the blog secrecy news an inch valuable resource. And we do have the program. My apologies this is in the program. Author of the secrecy news a wonderful resource. Steve. Thank you liza. And thank you to the center. There is a big subject. A bunch of very mart people. I want to jump right into it. First pose for the panelist and also let them respond and see where we go. Bart maybe i will start with you. The Washington Post last month. Had a story that the head of the cia Counterterrorism Center would be reassigned and replaced. They declined to name him. They said that he was uncover. So i would not be identified by name. Then gawker went ahead and named him. So my question for you is did the Washington Post submit to the said you can of secrecy as fritz called it . Or did it exercise prudent judgment. What are the questions, and what should the me. The public think when they see an outlet withholding the information. And only to have it revealed by another so i spent a big chunk of my career at the post. To make that clear. I dont note circumstances he can actually. But there is consider ages to want them to entertain is that there are many not many subjects for the law to forbid the publication. So if this gentleman, had recently been or was sueded to be a stations overseas i dont think that is the case here. If the u. S. Government could make a persuasive case that his naming in that article would have exposed him or someone else to a specific danger, that would have been a reason to withhold. I doubt that was the case either. His name had been published before and was available online. The story acknowledged that. And the post was saying. If you want to find the name. You can. Which are not publishing it. It is important to acknowledge that. You know. If you are going to hold it back. I dont know why. Knowing what i know now. Okay. Um you know i think that we are most of us are live in the age of being congenial. Let me try to challenge that and to ask gary cordero. And former justice official what if we are living in the age of unprecedented openness . I pose the question. In seriousness. I remember 20 years ago during the budget season that i would go over to the pentagon to get the budget documents you know. I had to take the metro. I had to get into the building since i did not have a press credential. I needed a building pass. In order to get a building pass. Would i have to be finger print and have the National Agency checked. The equivalent of getting a secret clearance. Eventually, i would get a stack of budget dock uchlts to take them back to the office. And to weighed through them page by page. 20 years later, not only i but anyone will get the budget documents instantly the moment they are released. I this i that the credible argument could be made that more government information is more easily available to more people. Than ever before. So i wonder if you would like to comment on that to ask on anything or anything would you like to see. The era of new openness. I do not know anyone that would look at the Current Situation and to take into account the changes in technology. And that you are describing the difference and access to the information that resides digitally. Instead of in a file cabinet somewhere, where it is hard to locate. I think that we definitely are in a new era of openness. I this i that the question will become in this sort of picking up on the issue thats are in the book as well is what then are sort of the legitimate ways for the information to become public and to be as public. To come in from my having been in a government background there is a big difference between what you just describe and your past where you had a bavenlg and you went through the process as it is laid out. And had legitimate access to information that had been released through some sort of a structured process. There is a difference between that. And information that occurs because somebody leaks documents. Claekz leaks classified documents and commits a crime in order for the information to end up in the Public Domain in some way. Then i this i that the question that we are looking at right now. Often we hear about the balance of the public interest. So often times what we will hear is that the adjustcation for the information being published even if it was classified information that it would release and the public interest. So then as we can continue we will have different answers to what we would have in the public interest. Okay. Very good. Um. Charlie savage the New York Times. Fritz has written. And i think said a moment ago. That the traditional rolf the press is to decimate the news. But that under prevailing conditions of seek see. The reporters will have to do more than that they will have to discover the newest information. To present it. To the public. This may not be what he was thinking of but it made me think of the relatively new practice and many could not place of which news stories are based on official documents. This is increasingly good with the practice to make those document publicly available online. That pioneered and pioneered or helped to reinforce. And i hope that you can reflect on that practice and how it is emerged. And performed. Sure. This is something that would not be possible without sort of the internet and pdfs and the ability to post things ease scompleet creation of the document cloud service. And a public good form reporteres to up load and to find and share the primary documents. My own reporting and countless others as well. And in away where a reporter can up load without the hoopla. And lowered the bar. To just getting it out there. And the importance of that is that talking about how he went back to read the minority views. Cheney wrote it. Cheneys people wrote it for him. He worked for a republican congressman on the minority report. The point is that stuff can be available and yet not recognized, right . And if you are a reporter that has been fortunate to come across this thing or that thing. When you go through it the best that you can you find what you think is interesting and true about it but you may have missed something . Several years ago you made a statement which has been etched in countless articles in all sorts of publications to the effect that age of subpoenas against newspaper reporters was trying to make clothes. Not because the government did not want to know the reporters sources but they have other ways of finding out. Could you revisit and elaborate on that statement about how long that is coming true . [laughter] that was several years ago. A couple of people were at the same meeting was that. What i meant is the subpoena that we saw 2008, at that time there are getting far more aggressive use electronic tools and as jim disclosed theyre now using electronic data to do a matrix foreign journalist. They can get your records credit card receipts it is not a subpoena on a new there reporter but i want you on the witness stand to tell me what you saw. Not to say it will never happen again but what theyre doing is gathering information to identify who is a likely person to have gotten that and tried to survey the universe of electronic data to figure out who your source likely would have been in the mere fact they have the capacity to do that. It is not like 30 years ago when to identify a confidential source they had to tell you. The value can get it other ways as we saw with the sterling case. They could get a conviction without him testifying. And i think that is what you will see more of in the future. Plus we already have a situation in the ap case is the best example where in the past they have had the ability to get a phone record with first guarded they would go after john solomon his telephone at the office his cellphone and his telephone to find out information about a source in asia. We although two years ago virtually every phone line at the Associated Press had been scraped to see everyone was talking to and to my knowledge nobody had been that brazen in the past. That resulted in the Justice Department quasi apologizing coming up with new guidelines but that is an example of how they just assumed they would do things in the future. Do we have any reason to believe it was purged or they held onto it . Does anybody seriously think they would purge that . [laughter] if from the attorney generals guidelines of course. Onetwo come back to this in a minute. There is an episode that you mentioned in your book during the Church Committee hearings there is going to be a hearing on assassinations and senator baker had urged the official testimony be taken in open session. But senator church said no. Could you talk about that episode and what that tells us about secrecy . Did senator church centcom or was it a prudent tactical move on his part . I knew about it and was involved in it. I agreed with senator church but it was against my personal interest because he told me before our first witness our goalies leadoff questioning of any witness. Of course, these would have been incredibly dramatic hearings with the emotional testimony from the family members of the eisenhower and kennedy and cabinet secretaries from very important people and cia. But a close call he made the right judgment because with an open hearing you will have a hard time being careful to draw the distinctions of those that should remain secret in those that should not be. For example, we made highlevel government officials, we use their names is the government to look ridiculous positions like a member of the mafia hired by the cia we should not use that persons name or a chief scientist of the cia who devised the poisons in toothpaste tubes and so forth. He used his real name. Eidenshink church was correct there would have been risks how we could handle those hearings that we were prudent not to take and we came out with all the information at the end the hearings would have been fantastic and howard is a very good member of the committee and a thoughtful man although i could watch him and he had a habit his eyes are always moving says he would pick up though Little Signal from one person here or there but at the end of the day he did not think he was wrong although he would like for that to have been public. On the question of reporters taking steps to Encrypt Communications bar because then when out in front. And talk about that whole endeavor. Mind understanding is encryption is most effective in the aggregate when lots and lots of people are encrypting it just raises the threshold for anyone to intercept but if a small minority are encrypting you run the risk to say i have secret conversations dont you want to figure out what i am doing . Is that a concern . And where do we stand with that effort to improve the confidentiality by reporters and sources . I have a unifying model so to secure the stuff i was an early member and i became concerned even before especially after an 11 the difficulty to protect confidential sources. So i did learn the tools of the encryption and anonymity one way to address the here imi amusing encryption and stick out like a sore thumb is use anonymous technology it is difficult to tell who is speaking and what they say. But if you already thank you are a target then it is a good idea it to use it as much as possible or incorrect videos and songs to upload and download every day rand of sewage is difficult to track what is a specialty significant with what you say. That is the old military concept. In the early days they could not have given me the document if i didnt already have this technology it is the discipline of have it but is widely available in quite easy to use that and itemizes your identity and location and could be used in the email account it is very hard to tell you are but the 101st time that you forget use explorer or chrome now you have connected yourself to that account. The tools need to get easier as they think about how to use them. They dont solve a problem which is the First Contact problem. It is rare that i can have my initial contact with the person to economize the Encryption Technology when you first meet with the person you say here is my keys and download the images as if youre on a first date at a coffee shop. You are jumping way ahead of the relationship that you have. It is amusing but it is quite true the people who are important sources start off with idle conversation that for the promotion of a new job. So i will stop talking now. We will come back to your theory. The leak prosecution . What is left to be said . First i go back to Say Something that it is the overall theme of what youre trying to get at them in his book he makes the point some secrets are legitimate and do need to be captain there is a legitimate government reason to keep it secret progress the same time the book makes the point there is way too much information that is secret and should not be. But part of what has happened with the recent disclosure is what is the way for word to make the information and more transparent or what type of information in legitimately gained to increase the volume of what is out there . Because some of that recent information passed to do with how the government does intelligence work with government folks may refer to and that is the type of information that they will be most sensitive and probably that is the most brightly classified information. One area from my perspective that i hope gets more attention than i think would be more meaningful from the public discussion sampling is information regarding the substance of what the community is starting through these activities. He makes one little point in the book to hypothesize what would have happen in december 2001 if the government would have made public a little bit about what it was learning about the threat that was building with al qaeda. Not do is speculate what would have happened i dont think we can do that in hindsight but the point is well taken and the lesson for how we go forward from oslo to comment on the prosecution question, one thing i feel i hear a little bit is the feeling from the Journalist Community that theyre the target not to put words in in your mouth but targeted investigation and it is important to keep in mind in those cases that have come up, and the involvement of the journalist, the request of the government of that Legal Process was primarily in the context to conduct the investigation of someone else it is important 2. 0 in the vast majority of cases that we looked at the information sought from journalist is not because they themselves are the target of the government. We are seldom if ever in recent history the targets of criminal prosecution. Undoubtedly in some cases of high real interest surveillance that it has the ability to do the reporting. For purposes of journalism i would argue with my phone records and my phone calls for the purpose it has the exact same ability to work. Charlie, let me ask a loaded question. It seems source protection while it is the urgent responsibility it is not the highest in thinking of a formative event which is a New York Times story april lead to 99 when it was james said jeff that reported the loss soulless scientists suspected of transferring classified information to china compromising virtually every Nuclear Weapon in the United States arsenal. Who knows what that means but it sounds really bad. The story was not an accurate data officials told reporters this and they represented the information accurately but it proved to be inaccurate as far as the substance the times protected its sources in the case but they could not protect the scientist who spent nine months in solitary confinement. So the question i am left with to penetrate the veil of secrecy is good but not the most important thing . Is it . [laughter] forgive me. Take it. Speaking to my wife yesterday. [laughter] but with my own analogy the have been working with in your time this with about five years that was for generations of management ago but to talk about the truth if youre in the business to only in the world but if you made representations you keep your idea is confidential or if they were mistaken you will never have another confidential source in your life so it does have that spill over effect etiquette not be stuck to raise specific scenario. There is a certain sense those who support a the crackdown that this case to be justified or so could that that it is a righteous prosecution. Two except that in the abstract for the sake of argument that logic overlooks the spillover effect to send someone to jail so if you stipulate but you force james to testify. You are destroying gems ability because no one will trust him again. To have those collateral consequences with thats a lot what he reported in the case from when then near times is reporting but nevertheless can reporters to their jobs or not . That bedtimes did pay a financial settlement. Do you want to respond . Or one other item that comes to mind that one example of the Obama Administration exceptional discipline to impose secrecy was a petition to normalize relations with cuba that even reporters had no clue this was going to happen until the day it was announced. Do you want to reflect on that as a case of secrecy of good or bad or indifferent . If you support the policy you may be fine if you oppose any miss the chance to organize against it. What else can you say about that . First of all, i remember the case vividly in i think charlie did not do a good job answering that question. [laughter] there are a couple of cases out there i was perversely involved in that i hate looking back on is that was one of them. The secrecy of cuba shows the most obvious thing to me is the discipline and while this the Home AdministrationObama Administration is pushing out pretty routine stuff and anything that anybody wants to know. Is the best example is a the Correspondents Association the year ago when the banning photojournalism to rely mostly as an outstanding photographer vitas always take the same picture as the of photojournalist in the pool will taken they seem to think they can block again tweet and postings on facebook and everything will be fined or pushout documents but i have never had anybody say can you help me get up frequently requested data set . That isnt what they want to get. It is insincere. But with the cuba situation situation, first and foremost it may show the impact the policies have had in the people in the administration are very their recorded required to write down if they ran into a reporter or a fair question and they are saying that folks that they normally would have had not such a tough time to interact with are shutting them down and not just with security clearance the government klein is scientist, people who worked for nasa, nih to explain diseases. The secrecy reflects a more idea that people are afraid to speak. I want to return to the subtitle of the book the seduction of government secrecy the words sadat seductions suggest the irrational element or a passionate attachment. Is there a seduction of disclosure . Could you write a sequel on the seduction of disclosure . Being assessed by secrecy is more dangerous than disclosure if i had to choose one i would take the secrecy and not disclosure. The seduction is very, very real. To mention in the part of the book that talks about what would have happened not the cia but the white house revealed the strongly worded warnings it was getting during the summer of 2001 with the al qaeda intent with these very, very very serious numerous casualties in many deaths they had those disclosures. There was not something wrong that they did. They were topsecret but the problem with secrecy is it gets people not to think so nobody thought about what would happen if we let the public know or more importantly we let the people in the fbi and other places responsible for protecting the country know that there are the serious threats . I believe had they done so very likely 9 11 would not have happened. But the more basic point in response to your question but the seduction of secrecy it will issue into not sinking dash thinking after it has been made secret. The publisher pushed me to have different words like psychosis. [laughter] i said that sounds good but it is too strong i think seduction is fair. We have a couple of minutes for questions but first with a human dash in late tennis with your theory . Information is power in it enables all institutions as they govern the choices that we make with their functioning of Market Forces like privacy for example, it enables the judicial system to work you cannot claim standing of you cannot establish a thing has happened to you so transparency in naples that it is important for voter choice it in between elections. So we are in the golden age of the government is happy to do what you talked about. Moreover those who want to find out have more tools if you copy something to reach a global audience to collaborate all around the world that is a huge boon to open this. But when you get to the places where the government wants to keep it secret and technology and government and other tools available have enabled more control nobody today believes what john perry says as a declaration of the internet that we are beyond your reach. He starts the book with a wonderful repurchasing in which the source or the tree of knowledge. Taking from the tree of knowledge but it is inactive of transgression against the authority but we should not treat a our government with the same type of authority. When you challenge the government then you have a much bigger problem there are legitimate secrets for who should be responsible to decide that for i am not qualified because of the competing interest. Is a process will retry to find the amount but as mentioned there is a moment closer to collaboration which conversations are had but to clarify what are the stakes . And they dont claim to be in charge to set the boundaries of how dare you . There is a market environment or the ecosystem not just for milk were tertiaries everywhere that equilibrium works in any event that i can think of for a long time is undermined by working harder to enforce its prerogatives in Technology Enables that efficiently. Solo to publish a short piece the general National Security law but with Edward Snowden and his agents with the statement for congress that you were coconspirators but the president as his role as commander in chief to give him the power to use the surveillance techniques against journalist because it is classified is counterintelligence that is a legitimate purpose therefore theyre more in practice than they used to be. To scoop up the phone records for heteroclite fundamental between the government in the government with counterintelligence and unauthorized disclosures on the same plane. Somebody have a billion questioned . We have been talking about the investigations with the panelists have anything to say the most recent matter is yet to be approved by ed judge of general petraeus as to having supplied integration to a woman and also to misrepresent his recollection of those facts the interviews with the fbi. What do we think of that . If you compare him to Edward Snowden he was clearly acting for patriotic reasons one could argue if he did or did not do the appropriate thing but the general was acting for selfish reasons or economic reasons between the two witches the more reprehensible act . [laughter] i will not take that on. But setting aside the comments of the petraeus question in the last few minutes i heard the Obama Administration has exceptional disciplined with secrecy than it was also said that the beverage is exerting significant amount of control over the information it is a little bit ironic considering we just witnessed a couple years of massive massive leaks upon the scale we have never seen before because of the way the information was retained in the way the individuals were entrusted to download onto a fund drive thumb drive or to walk out the door or to make copies of papers. I am not completely buying off that the National Security establishment or the Political Leadership imposes the draconian amount of secrecy. That being said to judge the effects and perhaps it goes to the way the Different Cases are treated the past to do the damage that was done. It is very difficult to know how damaging these leaks are for. Has that damaged the ability to conduct certain military operations . Because the government is not so forthcoming that is why the government could not house their capabilities but it has of upside to judge or have a sense of what someone has done inappropriately to disclose classified information to which they have access because they dont have the information to know how damaging it was the government does. But those themselves are classified. For understandable reasons. But they tried to prove holler but they did not prove any at all. With those topsecret documents is that think does that mean they are more secretive . It is right and that there are so many is impossible to hide who you talk to but technology has enabled something totally do to be lost in secret documents. Every day you open the paper but it masks, which the retail level they have been chilled by this supplier to but can be overcome by someone who wants to throw their life away. There is no point to hide it at that point it is almost like it should be in the different categories with the disruptions. So the technology in practice to disclose things with the government but looking at this snowden documents another way. Not only concealing with secrecy but active deception with phone records collection in taking place. Not that they just did not tell anyone that level is controversial and discussed a lot in public. When they testified they said he should not worry the only used it 24 times as a seldom used to roll and billy takes four of those to get 1 trillion records so a facesaving just had a few beers you are probably being lied to. The example goes both ways there must the damage there has to be cases for reasons fed is remarkably hard when shooting from the assay Inspector General to draft that with it the if communication which you dont actually send an email but he said to disclose this to the world but there is so long way to of disclosure of 2004 so the big nine in a Satellite Phone was continuously hit. Including the Commission Report for 9 11. There must be some examples of would help if we could get one. We need to start writing down. Some things that have to be have the committees of congress to protect us have you done enough to investigate to review the whole of congress . Minibus think they have not done that effectively to put Congress Pressure to do a better job. That is the good point. I think when people cover these issues they focus of the agencys in the lot of what they have done and in day tend to leak it is probably demonstrable there are fewer reporters covering congress that i should put it this way there are many more people covering congress there are few reporters who have substantial experience covering those particular issues. There is a lot more people that will develop that in the future but theres so distracted right now by crap these days i dont think theyre doing their job or journalist they are not forcing them to work that way but they did in the 70s or the 80s. I dont know. With the surveillance revelation more skeptical adversarial overseers. With the exception as it turns out behindthescenes to have that got stopping information but even but we got was to say it is complicated. The committee has not fought back the way theyre notified they cannot take notes or staff people cannot come but maybe it is the seduction point theyre seduced therefore why do they complain . Also the term limits will lessen the determination to bring into the light more things. Collectively to do much better job with more solid news to recover with the leadership battles but given the deadlock that the most important work is oversight surtout cover that with it isnt a lot to say to control classification but if it chose to it ted declassify anything that it likes it has that power with the constitutional system i doubt the president could stop it. It is also the case that congress doesnt do that it appears it will not be told as much as it already is which is limited that justin gave of very funny talk to stage you have a secret robot army . They will say no sir. Navy your air force then you find out but of 100,000 autonomous robot killers they cannot be commissioned as officers 80 is difficult to play those 20 questions they want to tell you. There are a couple of things that are counterculture feted as undemocratic also prior to 9 11 to have that benefit to speak to you would prefer to have policy making in public in to make those decisions in secret that is becoming surprisingly you rare and i want to hear the view of back to. On each of those i would say yes but theyre not 100 percent but more of the democratic discussion is whether a country is based on. If we are contemptuous of the people that they cannot wrestle with tough questions we have lost something of enormous value. Secrecy is not the only problem with profound illnesses and our system and the you can see with all kinds of policy areas that are not secret that we also lose the ability to debate productively as dealing with secrecy and National Security context even if he would fix that problem there are larger issues to grapple with. Will you use the word he leaped with increasingly high numbers of people in pockets all over the country right now were in great danger to split Society People have access to this information in we know that