But also not to go too far down that line to sacrifice our Civil Liberties. You are an independent board. Who do you report to . We dont. We inform congress and the president , but there is no review of our report. We issued a report recently about the Metadata Program and surveillance report. The board voted and issued our report. We also briefed the president before his speech with our recommendations. I think that is where ellen wants to pick up. Your board got constituted and met at a very opportune time, right in the midst of the leaks by Edward Snowden, who put a huge spotlight on several important surveillance programs. One of them is section 215, as you mention. Your board came out with a 238 page report last month. I would say it is arguably the most extensive analysis of the legal underpinnings and the utility of the 215 program, which is, as most of the public now knows, a program where the nsa collects metadata, data about phone calls of americans, and puts it in a database, to search through them when they have a suspected terrorists phone number, to search for links to that number and detect plots and networks. Your board came with the conclusion and recommendation that the program was illegal, did not meet the statute that it was based on. You also recommended it therefore end outright, should stop operating. President obama in his speech only met you halfway. He said, we find the program has utility. We want to preserve the use of the data, but move it out of the hands of the government. What do you think of that . Do you think there is a feasible solution, such as putting the data in the hands of a third party . Is that feasible technologically or politically . President obama did track pretty closely with what we recommended. We recommended an interim. We would have had more protections added. I hope that is considered. We both recommended the end of the 215 program, to move the information out of the nsa. We did it on constitutional and policy grounds. We do not believe that having a thirdparty handle the data is the right way to go. Shifting the data from one box to another does not solve the problem. The thirdparty what is their Legal Authority . Are they subject to foia . What safeguards do they have . How will they operate . We think that is not the way to go. It is far better to have the information accessed through other legal authorities than held by the providers. How much of your concern has to do with the program itself, and how much has to do with the precedent the program sets . Once you have a program of that sort, why cant the government collect when i go to the supermarket and give them a loyalty card, they have the list of everything i have richest purchased in the last year. Can the government put that in the database as well . The implications are quite serious. The government could get all credit card transactions. Our concern is that once the government starts gathering so much information about our everyday lives, it shifts the power between the citizens and the government. Some people will exercise their First Amendment rights to contact reporters, religious organizations, political organizations. If they know the government is monitoring every move, it might chill their exercise of those rights. We are concerned about broad policy issues. Having telephone numbers has all those effects, and lacks Legal Authority. Would it concern you if the government expanded requirements of what Telephone Companies are required to store . As a citizen, how much do you care about what the government is Holding Versus private parties . Private parties can interfere, perhaps not as dramatically as the government. They can cause problems. If the information is there, what is the practical difference . The government can audit your taxes, put you in jail. The government can do lots of things. There is a difference between data held by a private company and the government, which can impact your life in a more serious way. The Telephone Company is already required to keep its information for 18 months. It has not been a calamity. Some have suggested it might be necessary to keep it longer. Others have suggested that might be necessary, to have the providers hold the information. President obama directed the attorney general and director of National Intelligence to come up with options, alternatives to the Government Holding of data, on march 28. And to work with congress as well. Adoptions that congress can live with. Do you think they can do that . If not, what happens then . We have been in touch with that group and plan on meeting with them to give our input on how to move forward. There are computer scientists, government officials, and others who think it is feasible to shift to others and be as feasible as it is today. We hope that will be a solution. Our program and the statute underlying it expires in june of next year. If congress does not act, the whole program will go away. You do not think there is enough support in the congress . I cannot predict that. A lot of members of congress have raised concerns about this program. I hope there will be an approach of stopping metadata collection of americans, shifting that to a more privacy protected, more focused approach. You said you think keeping this data in the hands of the phone companies, either with the current retention requirement or something a little bit longer, would be as effective and efficient as the way the system works now. How effective and efficient is the system . There have been reports by ellen and others, saying the system may be is not that effective, and certainly not as comprehensive as many people have thought at the outset of this debate. The government has put together 12 instances where they said the program was particularly effective. Our board looked at both classified and unclassified information. We even had our write up. At the end of the day, we found no plots were supported. No terrorists were identified we did not know about earlier. On those big picture issues, not particularly effective. Knowing there was not a plot afoot in the United States is certainly a value. We felt other resources with bulk data would address that concern. One case which seemed to have unique value involve material support. Not an insignificant fact, but we felt that on balance that effect did not outweigh the concerns raised on the privacy and Civil Liberties side. The program is not comprehensive. You mentioned the peace of mind argument, which the government turned to after several months of trying to argue the program have been directly effective. Now, they argue indirect benefit of ease of mind. If you had an alarm system on your home and it only operated on wednesdays and fridays, would you consider that a useful thing to have . Would you pay a lot of money for that, and would you keep it if it caused you other problems, like made your lights flash . Im not going to go down that path that information remains classified, but the government has asserted the program is valuable and effective. Our conclusion, our majority, is that it is not enough to justify the program as it is. In a sense, you got lucky. The existence of this program was leaked by a document Edward Snowden shared with the guardian. Had that program not leaked, and the government subsequently declassified it, how would you have handled the reporting of this program . Our board has the highest level security clearances. We have access to virtually every Government Program that relates to counterterrorism, which is our mission. In some cases, going forward, there may be programs that remain highly classified, where we do a report that only goes to the president and congress. If there is a version we can make public, we will. That was our goal in this report, which ended up being entirely unclassified. There is a program which still remains largely classified. We will try to speak to the American Public as much as we can about the constraints and what can be done about it. Can you do that now . Tell us a little bit about 702, for those who do not know. The 702 program, which is sometimes misnamed prism, it is focused on contents. Metadata, we did not know who was calling or what they were saying. 702 is what is being sent on the phone calls or the contents of the emails. That program is focused on nonu. S. Persons, and those outside of the United States. You have to be not a u. S. Person and outside the United States. Countries typically engage in intelligence on foreigners, particularly outside our borders. It is somewhat rare Court Approval is required. I am not sure there is any other country in the world that requires for approval for surveillance outside the United States. But we are about to embark on a review of the program. It raises interesting issues. One is, at the end of that phone call, maybe an american is on one end. How should that data be treated, particularly if the government wants to query it later on . And the effectiveness of the program. Absolutely. The program is reportedly extremely effective. But our board, being an independent evaluation board, we want to take a hard look at that and find out what metrics were used. We all agree that the only metric should not be thwarting plots. A lot of benefits to these programs. Connecting the dots. Providing valuable intelligence. Guiding the president in his actions. We are certainly going to question the government and test the proposition that this program is as effective as it is reported to be. Looking at the legality and constitutionality, two of your Board Members dissented. One of them i think said it was not the role of the board to assess legality. That is the role of the courts. What do you say to that . We are going to look at legality. The board member did not say we were not authorized to do that. It is a matter of allocating resources. If you look at our statute, Congress Told us to do two things evaluating programs related to enter terrorism. One is to balance Civil Liberties, and the other is to assess compliance with law. It is part of the congressional mandate. If it is an ongoing program, it is important to know whether it operates within the law. We will be looking at its operations, its legality, constitutional issues it may raise. And the balance between private security and Civil Liberties, how secure it is and what impact it has on americans. The you are a little bit lucky that the 215 program came up first. 702, the purposes are many. Counterterrorism is just one. There is counter weapons of mass destruction. There is gathering information about what other governments are doing. There may be other areas the 702 program is used for. It is not limited by its terms to terrorism. The board mandate, as i understand it, the statute is limited to terrorism. How are you going to do this . Are you going to be assessing this in respect to these other metrics that you do not have the Statutory Authority to examine . We are going to be mindful of our statutory limits. Looking at counterterrorism and other efforts it will be hard to separate those things out. Our focus will be on counterterrorism. Will it be useful for congress to tweak the language under which you are created, to expand a little bit, so it is not strictly counterterrorism . Because again, if Civil Liberties are being invaded, it may not matter that much with the reason is. You are talking about the other side of it is, we are a new agency with a tiny staff. We are just getting established. Expanding our mission right now certainly, we would do that if congress wanted us to do that. We are still scaling up the agency and getting started, staffing up. We have plenty within the counterterrorism program. There are 16 intelligence agencies we oversee. We already have quite a big mandate as it is. What about other bulk collection programs . Will you be taking a look at those, perhaps financial transfer programs, or the discontinued internet Metadata Program . We have not really established our agenda once we finish the 702 report. The president , as you know, asked john podesta to take a look more broadly. We are also meeting with his group and with him to discuss our perspective on that issue. In general, the collection of all committed data and its use does raise interesting concerns for us. You mentioned the legal analysis you did. There is one person on the board very qualified to do legal analysis, former judge patricia wald. Tell us about the interaction inside the board. How did that work . Did some of you take more responsibility for some aspects of the study, and others look more at other issues . Tell us a bit more about the makeup of the board and who has what kinds of expertise. We are an independent bipartisan board, so no more than three members can be in the same political party. Judge wald was with the d. C. Circuit court of appeals. She was given the president ial medal of freedom a couple of months ago. She has also served on other commissions. A valuable resource for us. I should add i am the only fulltime board member. The other four are parttime. Judge wald is a retired judge, but jim dempsey works in technology. Rachel brand works for the chamber of commerce. We all bring our different perspectives. I think you can see from our work product that we are a collegial group. If you look at separate statements, they acknowledge how well we got along. These are tough issues. They are difficult issues. You go to capitol hill, you will see different sides. The president advocates certain views. The question is, how you strike the right balance . We have sometimes intense discussions. 10 of the 12 recommendations we made were unanimous. All of the recommendations regarding reform of the Foreign Surveillance board, all but one involving transparency, and all but one involving the 215 program. That was a big one. How does your agency go about raising concerns . Is it just through this report . If you have concerns, where do you go with them . We have an oversight function. We also have an advice program. We work with the agencies as they are developing their programs. One of the things we are doing right now in addition to our 702 report is meeting with agencies to give them feedback on programs. We are in negotiation with agencies to make sure, as they develop programs or change their guidelines regarding existing programs, that we put in those. We also have to meet with members of congress, congressional committees. We try to provide input in various ways. And try to report to the American People. If these agencies do not listen to you . Interestingly enough, our statute requires us to Tell Congress that we recommended the agency do something and they did not follow our advice. We are required by law to report when that happens. I want to take you back to an earlier position about how you might have handled reporting on the section 215 program, had it not been declassified. One of your recommendations is that the government report publicly on the scope of surveillance activities that affect americans. This is one of them. How much could you have made public . Would you have said there is a program that collects telephone metadata . What came out in testimony earlier this week is our board had been briefed on the 215 program, and the person who was briefing us was hit by a car on a bike and it had to be rescheduled. We were onto to 215. We operate in an area where there is a lot of classified information. We are able to push for declassification to help the American People understand a program. You might have pushed for declassification . If we find aspects of the program or the entire program where we think there is a public benefit, we consider going to the Intelligence Community and saying, please declassify these programs so we can have a fuller national debate. We do not want a secret law where the American People cannot determine whether a program has been authorized. We also urge the government to report more on Information Collection activities. And to let customers know more about the government requests they are receiving. Some of the Tech Companies have reached an agreement to disclose more about what kinds of requests they get from the government. Are there any programs you are pushing for more declassification . We are embarking on the 702 program, and that could come up in the course of reporting on that program. You have been following these issues for some time. How do you see the countrys attitudes on this question of the balance between National Security and privacy changing . Could the debate that has taken place in the last few months have taken place eight years ago, nine years ago . We are 12 years post 9 11. We also see this in the courts. Almost all decisions in this area i do not want to say rubberstamp. 99 of the time, in the last two months, we have seen in the 215 program a significant decision saying it was not constitutional. We have seen a few decisions describing how these counterterrorism programs have gone. Do you think there is greater maturity on these issues . You think there has been a shift in how the government feels about this now . After the horror of 9 11, i think the first action was to beef up our efforts. As time has gone on, i think we have struck up more of a balance between National Security and privacy and Civil Liberties concerns. There was a poll where a substantial percentage of people said they would not give up their privacy and Civil Liberties, and that was after a horrific event, Boston Marathon bombing. Our board sits in the middle of a debate. We are not an Advocacy Organization where we ignore the consequences to National Security. We have to strike the balance and say, how can we protect the country and benefit privacy and Civil Liberties . The 9 11 commission and the president have said the same thing. If we give up one, we have lost a lot. Time for a couple more questions. I know the executive order 12333, which is domestic, is not part of your mandate. Given this increasingly borderless world of the internet, and the fact that communications collected overseas include communications of americans, do you think your mandate ought to stretch to include that . We do not have jurisdiction over 12333 matters, because they involve every Intelligence Agency is required to have guidelines when collecting information, particularly about americans. Some of those guidelines were decades old. There was not text messaging 3 decades ago. There has been help the debate. We have encouraged those guidelines be updated. That is very much of a 12333 activity. Do you think it is time for a unified set of privacy practices that is elected on u. S. Citizens, or overseas. There are different contexts and benefits of programs. There are different issues, whether it is u. S. Or nonu. S. Persons. Our system has to work properly. I think there are unique factors. It may not be same size fits all. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. We are back with our reporters, josh gerstein, ellen nakashima. What happens next with the nsa surveillance programs, whether capitol hill or the white house . In january, president obama made a big speech at the forum, and outlined reforms he wanted to see happen. One big one was, he wanted to see an end to the nsa collection of telephone metadata as it currently exists. He did not say outright. He said as it currently exists. He ordered his director of National Intelligence to come up with alternatives to the Government Holding of the phone metadata by march 28. They are going to have to come up with some options. Then, there are several other reforms that can be done administratively to curtail the collection or the analysis, and some of them need congressional approval, like setting up a panel of independent advocates who can provide a privacy or Civil Liberties viewpoint. That would require congressional approval. On the hill, you have a divided congress. There are those who believe section 215 should remain and stay as it is. They would like to see it put into statute and codified. There are others who are humanly believe it is illegal, and the statute does not authorize it. In the president s speech, he did not bring it up. The white house takes the position it is legal. They have been running the Program Since 2009. They ran it in an expanded fashion, at one point, it it got email information. The white house does take that position. On capitol hill, i have almost never seen an issue where lawmakers are so splintered. It is not one of these issues where they are divided between republicans and democrats, or divided between democrats and moderate republicans and then conservative republicans. People are all over the map. There are a lot of lawmakers in the senate and the house who agree on a lot of issues who disagree on this issue. A lot of it is where you stand. People on the Intelligence Community are gung ho and believe in the detail of how these programs are carried out. People at both ends of the political spectrum there are other people at different random points along the line that have formed alliances along the reform legislation. There does not seem to be consensus. Those in favor of major reforms are setting it down are unlikely to add advocates to the fisa court. Another route is the courts. Rand paul has decided he is going to sue and wants millions of americans to sign up. Where does it go from there . There are several cases pending in courts. At the u. S. District court level, we have two competing decisions. The court in washington, the judge said the section 215 program is constitutional. Another judge held that it is constitutional. The process can take months if not years. In addition to the lawsuits, we have criminal cases. We do not know a lot about them. If you broaden it to the 702 program this panel is going to be looking into next, there are a lot of cases that came directly or indirectly from that program. In each of those cases, the lawyers, once they find out if happened, or filing a motion saying the program is not constitutional. This is something the court is not going to be able to dodge more than another year or two. It is almost guaranteed that several decisions, whether it be criminal defendants this is going to be dropped in the laps of justices. Within a year or two, they are going to have to resolve this question. Thank you both. Appreciate it. The results of a siena poll ranking the nations first latest. We discussed the results with the director. For the fifth time since 1982, the Siena Research institute in new york has released the survey on the first ladies. Here are the results of the top 10. Number one, Eleanor Roosevelt. Two, abigail adams. Jacqueline kennedy is third. Dolly madison, four. Michelle obama is in fifth place, followed by Hillary Clinton and lady bird johnson, betty ford, Martha Washington and Roselyn Carter round out the top 10. Don levy is the director of the Siena Research institute. Dr. Levy, what do you see in this top 10 list . What is most amazing about this survey is five times, 32 years, we interview historians, political scientists, scholars who study the presidency and institution of the first lady. What is amazing is consistency over time. Eleanor roosevelt first, every time, over 32 years. She really stands out is the quintessential american first lady. If we were going to put a picture of a first lady in the dictionary, it would be Eleanor Roosevelt. Why is that . We look at 10 different categories. The background, the value to the country, how much value they had to their president. Whether she is her own woman. Again and again, we see Eleanor Roosevelt stand out. She truly was a trendsetting first lady, not only fdrs partner and counselor, but she reshaped that institution. She told american women that they mattered and that they were important in political and social life. Clearly, Eleanor Roosevelt not only campaign for fdr but she was instrumental in setting policy and the tone of the country during difficult years. She is warmly remembered for her entire time as first lady and for the work that she did subsequent to being a first lady as well. She really was a modern trendsetter for that office. The current first lady, Michelle Obama, is on that list. Is that a surprise . It is a little bit surprising. It is the first time that she was included. The last time the survey was taken was just before the obamas took office. She enters at a high level for a new first lady, at fifth, and bumps down Hillary Clinton to the six position. I think Michelle Obama stands out in a number of categories, her value for the country and value for the president. Being her own woman most especially. And her growing accomplishments in office. We also asked about which of the first ladies might these historians and political scientists imagine as serving as president. While Hillary Clinton is the number one choice, theres a fair amount of support for Michelle Obama as a least a hypothetical president of the United States in some future time. Michelle obama enters at a very high rate. Hillary clinton, in 1993 when we took the same survey during the early years of the clinton administration, actually enter the survey at that point as number two. It is impressive. Two things i want to ask about on the top 10 list. Number one, only one republican, betty ford, is on that list. Why is that . There are two ways to understand that. Many of the first ladies on that list stand out as having accomplished a great deal, as being first ladies that all first ladies clearly aspire to. I think that what we find is this is a survey of practicing historians, political scientists, many of whom are nested within the academy, authors who publish books on the presidency, and as a group. That group tends to be a little bit more biased towards the democrats than towards the republicans. The only republican on this list is betty ford. Several of the recent republican first ladies made the list of those first ladies who could have done more while they were in office. No first lady is a runway choice as for those who could have done more, but laura bush, barbara bush are all mentioned as first ladies who could have done more. Clearly Eleanor Roosevelt stands out. A couple of the early first ladies, really before the era of partisan politics took place as we know it today. There is a small bias that we can perceive amongst these historians and political scientists. One other thing is that a lot of these first ladies on the top 10 list are within our lifetime, beginning with jacqueline kennedy, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, lady bird johnson, Roselyn Carter, betty ford. Is there another bias in there for contemporary first ladies . I think so. These first ladies are certainly far better known to all of our historians. Also, they had a much more wider and Important Role in the modern era that some of the early first ladies. It is noteworthy to see that abigail adams, Dolly Madison clearly played Important Roles. Martha washington makes the list. Many of the first ladies and some of the ones who fall in the bottom five during the civil war era, with the notable exception of mary lincoln, are little known to many historians. And really, i think there would be the notable exception of abigail adams, Dolly Madison, it is the more modern first ladies who have been full partners in the sense that it is known to those who follow the institution of the first lady. Full partners to their president and are in the news each and every day. Are taking on issues. And really not only speak to the country but in many ways to the world about what and who america is. Lets look at the bottom five. Mary lincoln has been on this list in the past. Absolutely. And really, that is most notable when you talk about the bottom five. Mary lincoln has been among the bottom five each and every time until this year. The other influence we see in this survey sometimes is when there is New Historical work and or new work of Popular Culture that open up the book a little bit and tell the story of a first lady. That first ladys moves a little bit. Mary lincoln portray by sally field in the film about lincoln and some of the literature on lincoln of late has told, given a Wider Perspective on mary lincoln. She does not rise to the top. She remains near the bottom, about 10 places from the bottom, but her stature increased a little bit with more understanding of the difficult situation she was placed in. And no longer just thinking of mary lincoln as someone who was mentally unstable, as she had been portrayed for a long time. The other first ladies near the bottom, in many cases, are associated with presidencies that were seen as unsuccessful and that they added little to it. One notable first lady, Florence Harding, i think stands out near the bottom because it is more and more been saying that she played some role in some of the perhaps corrupt aspects of the harding administration. So Florence Harding is nailed as lacking integrity, she scores right at the bottom. The other first ladies that tend to be at the bottom in many cases are associated with littleknown president s, and some of the president s, both johnson and pierce, who book ended the civil war at a time in our country when we were really looking for great leadership and it was not until lincoln who, of course, is one of the most highly regarded president s took over. But the first ladies before and after the civil war were seen as giving very little value to the country, very little value to the president s who themselves were unsuccessful. The Siena Research institute did this in partnership with cspan. One of the new categories that was on the survey greatest political asset. Eleanor roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, jacqueline kennedy, Michelle Obama, and nancy reagan. One other new topic area was Lasting Legacy. Again, Eleanor Roosevelt topped that. Jacqueline kennedy, Hillary Clinton, betty ford, and lady bird johnson. What is about those five women . The greatest political asset i think is a category that really matters now. No longer is the first lady only looked upon as being a white house steward, but rather as a very important political ally to the president. Eleanor roosevelt stands out because she campaigns on behalf of the president. She was sent out to negotiate with various constituencies. She really stands out. Hillary clinton quite obviously was instrumental in many of the policies of the clinton administration. And of course now is seen as a first lady most likely to serve as president. Jackie kennedy makes the list. Michelle obama as a current asset. Nancy reagan shows up on that list in a very positive sense, i think, as a political asset. And the work that nancy reagan did as part of the Reagan Administration in some cases really taking care of the president , negotiating with various constituencies and even with warring parties within the administration itself was seen as quite crucial during the reagan years. Greatest Lasting LegacyJackie Kennedy, i think, deserves mention there. We just saw the 50th anniversary of the assassination of president kennedy. Once again, the nation was reintroduced to the role that Jackie Kennedy played not only in her role of revitalizing the white house as an institution, introducing the country to the white house, but the grace she conducted herself was a model for the country at the time of the assassination. And that is truly a legacy that has stood out not only for the country but for the institution of the first lady and the importance of that position to the entire country. She speaks in many ways to the heart and soul of our country. At good times, demanding times, and at difficult times, as was that of the assassination. A quick look at some of the topline results of the Siena Research institute. The newest survey on first ladies in collaboration with cspans first lady series. Cspans original series first ladies concludes monday evening here and we will look at the different time periods the first lady served in and how the role of president ial spouse has evolved and which first lady wielded the most influence. We will also be looking for your comments by phone, twitter, and facebook. Live monday night at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan and cspan radio. A conversation with Foreign Affairs columnist and threetime pulitzer winner Thomas Friedman. He talks about National Security and the freedom of the press. He is interviewed by former cbs news reporter. This a little more than an hour. [applause] our subject tonight is freedom. A big word. I would like to start by asking what is your definition of freedom . It is granted to be with you. You and your brother, burning, were always great. People i admire as a young journalist. A treat to be with you here today. Think. W, let me i am not a philosopher, i am a journalist. Let me answer your question in the context of journalism. If you started this story this evening by asking me, what was the greatest story you ever told . I just turned 60 and i have been at a few times for 33 years. Really thee one that most amazing . I would tell you it was tire r square for tahri the original revolution that overthrew president mubarak. When i came home and people asked me about it and i would say this was the most amazing story i ever covered and they will say why . It was the most apolitical political event i ever covered. Meaning . Level,ing that at some it was about this very deep somebody n of im i am somebody. If you ask me what is freedom . Desire, aspiration to live in a context where i can realize my full potential as a human being. I think what the square was root it is very grouped was a political aspiration, young people where they can see how everybody was living in wanting to live in a contest where they could relies their full potential. It had to do with mubarak and corruption and a context that have been built where they cannot realize their full but tension. They lived in a rigged game. About the not just ability to write or say anything or travel. There is something deeply personal. To live in a situation where i can be the fullest person. Do you feel people all over the world share the same sentiment . Is a very interesting question. I have thought about a lot as an arab spring. Know, my teachers, you the freedom of from and freedom to, positive and negative. So much of the arab spring was about initially was freedom from. People wanted their freedom from the various autocratic regimes. Happens in the next stage was freedom from a was great, but there is freedom to, too. What did you want to be free to do . You have to build a context to enable people to be free. It turned out some people wanted to be free to be more islamist. Some people wanted to be free to be more sectarian. Some people wanted to be free in the democratic cents to be equal citizens with equal rights and responsibilities. Or is this something that we acquire because we live the United States with the idea of freedom . From you ato get sense of the majesty of freedom, not a choice. Believe that everybody wants to live in a context that that allow powers them to realize their full potential. To aspiration for freedom live in a context where i can do all of those things is universal. As you said before, some people in the middle east today would have a quarrel about that in the sense that in the United States we grow up believing it is due us. And yemen in egypt do not grow with that. It is not universal. You can also fall into the opposite trap, to think that somehow we have got a and it is unique to us, and it is not an aspiration that other people necessarily want. I am only speaking from my own expense. Experience. Once we lifted the lid in that part of the world, it turned out that people wanted to be free. Maybe it was to live more within their own sect. So it is going to be different for different people, but ive found in my own travels and experience there, it remains a very, powerful and deep emotion. The First Amendment lays out certain principles. Congress cannot to do anything to abridge our freedom of speech, spree each press, peaceably assemble, and petition our government. They are laid out there. They are large concepts. The underpinnings for the society. They have been described as godgiven. Im wondering if you share that view. Gosh, i confess i have never thought about, you know, whether they are godgiven, but again, when i think of our own society i will give you the journalistic response. Thats a duck. No, it is because i am not a philosopher. I always, when ever people tell me chinas stealing our secrets, my answer always is, look, i dont encourage industrial theft or cyber theft, but only when they still a bill of rights. Tell me when they steal the constitution. Tell me when they steal the words off the lincoln and jefferson in washington memorials. Then they will have stolen something. All the things that are worth stealing in this country are hiding in plain sight, because as long as we have got those, we can always come up with another secret, another industrial advance, another innovation and breakthrough. And so those are the things that i think are of great value. And we sometimes, i find myself bristling at times when i hear our own lawmakers trashing our institutions. What would people in russia today give for one day of the sec . What would people in china today give for one day of the Justice DepartmentHuman Rights Division . You know, we kick this country around like it is a football sometimes. It is not a football. It is a faberge egg. And it is one that a lot of people around the world would appreciate in terms of these bureaucrats washington, d. C. These institutions are precisely what enable our freedom to, to do all these things. How do you think we got those . And this takes me to to origin once again. How do you think it happened that this country has the First Amendment that it does . Does it have anything to do, for example, with the fact that there is written into the First Commandment of the bible the idea that i am the lord who brought you out of the house of bondage. That there is something there having to do with an almighty force, liberating people from bondage, from bondage to what . You are talking about fromto. The early settlers in many ways were reenacting their own version of the exodus story. In leaving what they thought was a tyranny, a monarchical tyranny in europe and coming to the shores as part of our core dna. And so in terms of origin you are not going to go with me to any particular path . Im going to stay away from that path. Is it really possible in this country and in others to separate church and state . You know, that reminds me, that question, marvin, of is it possible to be an objective journalist . I am not dodging your question. Because whenever i am asked that, i always answer, i havent asked that. I have gotten that. Question before i will go to the next one then. And the answer to me is always that objectivity is not the thing. It is attention. The tension between understanding and disinterest. I cannot possibly write an objective story about you unless at some level i really try to understand you almost see the world through your eyes. At the same time i cannot write an objective and story if i were to only see the world through your eyes. Objectivity is a tension. Sometimes in the middle east you have to think about these things a lot. And sometimes i may be a little bit too understanding of you, sometimes too disinterested. Judge me over a period, but its a tension. In a country like ours founded by people escaping religious freedom but also inspired by their own religious ethic, there is always going to be a tension between church and state. You hear in the state of the union when the president says God Bless America and whatnot. As long as there is a tension, i have no problem with it. Since 9 11, there has been a lot of tension certainly in this country and in other parts of the world as well. Do you feel, as both a journalist and a citizen of this country, that since 9 11 you have lost any of your freedoms . Gosh, i i dont feel that. But i do feel that, um, i feel that, and what i wrote about 9 11 at the time was i do believe it was one of the most, maybe the most dangerous challenge to our open society in this sense that what this generation of terrorists were doing were taking objects from our daily life the backpack, the car, the airplane and turning them into weapons. And when you take objects from daily life, literally human beings at the end and turning them into weapons, what you do is you erode the very thing that keeps an open society open and that is trust. We trusted that everyone came in this room tonight, was not wrapped in the suicide vest or carrying a bomb in their shoe or purse, in their pen. Trust is the very lifeblood of an open society. And what is so dangerous about this generation of terrorism is that what it tries to do is attack that very thing. So that we close ourselves off. We search everybody. I went to a lecture this morning at Johns Hopkins on tunisia. It was just a lecture. I had to show my drivers license to sign in. Show my drivers license to a private security guard. There are those kinds of things that i find them they are still at the level of annoyance. Because you have written that if there were another 9 11, you would fearful that that would be the end of the open society. What i deeply worry about is another attack on the scale of 9 11. Because i fear then Many Americans would say, do whatever you need to do, do whatever you need to do. And i think our response to 9 11 in many ways has been remarkably restrained. Lets remember, how many years was that after 9 11, we elected an africanamerican whose middle name was hussein, whose grandfather was a muslim, who defeated a woman to run against the mormon. [laughter] ok . Who does that . Ok . [laughter] that was an amazing thing. Now, we have learned since then that we still have a lot of work to do, you know. When you see some of the racial antipathy that has been subtly and overtly directed at the president , but in many ways, the fact that we did that was the greatest repudiation of bin laden. And yet, the tools that the bin ladens use remains such a threat that you can imagine and and to our society as we know it, were there another major attack. I do not think it is a joke. Before i came over, i was reading the news. It is an amazing, perverse, bizarre story a suicide bomber trainee in iraq blew himself and 22 other trainees up, blew up 22 trainees who he was teaching and preparing how to build a suicide vest. This is not a joke. As a blew phone and himself and 22 other trainees up, blew up 22 trainees who he is aup, blew up 22 trainees who he a all was teaching and preparing girl and how as build a suicide vest. You this is not a joke. You know, there were things that far as we see in the middle east in the last five or six years that that kind of thing, that you have to take it seriously. And in absolutely. You ly. Ly. And you and you and lets talk a little bit about modern technology, of which i am not an expert. Then you have really got the wrong guy. You are pretty good at this stuff. But a number of people of my point of view might look at all of that modern technology and say, ech, leave me alone. I want to go back to an old typewriter. Modern technology to you is a good thing, and inspiring thing, and uplifting thing, or is it simply too heavy to lift . What is your sense of it and what is it doing at this point in our national lives to the issue of privacy, which i would like to get your gut feeling about . Oh, so i do not know where to dive in exactly. Do to privacy. I read the israeli newspaper every day, and as some of you may know, i am a golfer. A couple months ago i buy golf clubs online occasionally. I pick up the israeli newspaper and there is an ad for golf clubs in the middle of the front page. How did that get there . You put it there. How did that get from golf smith threw some cookies onto my front page . And so i find that a little creepy. They knew you were a golfer. That somehow golfsmith sold my data, so when i went to the israeli newspaper an ad for a golf swing comes up on the front page. I am reading the beirut daily. I get a call about trade a couple months ago, sharing economy site for womens apparel. And i wrote a column about it. The next day, i call up political and there is an ad. What does it all mean in terms of you have given an illustration of how they have moved into your privacy in the area of golf. Ok. What is it any purchase. It couldve been anything. What is it about modern technology that would allow Something Like twitter, if my information is right here, to find out where you are on any given time of the day . Are there no limits any longer. Because i have a feeling that a certain generation of the American People have no problem with yielding privacy. In fact, are quite happening about telling everything about themselves. What is that . And what is the danger if any exist at all . I do not have a facebook page, and the times tweaked my column. So im really not, i try to limit my, because i would be overwhelmed a little bit. I cannot deal with people wanting to friend me or whatever every hour. I can write my column or answer the mail, but it is one of the other. It cannot be both. It has been said by many people, privacy is over. Get used to it. And i was, you know, having breakfast at up in new york with a middle east diplomat friend of mine from the arab world, and u m, at a hotel, and a couple days later, he emailed me and said, whats this . And it was a blog post from i would say an antiarab site that Thomas Friedman giving his instructions from a middle east diplomat. It was like somebody was there with a cell phone, took a picture. I did not know was going on. Boom, and you just have got to go with it. I do not know how to fight it. Is there a danger, and this thought just occurred to me, that at a certain point if you lose x amount of your privacy you are also yielding aspects of your freedom . Oh, there is no question about it because it is on your mind all the time. You start to edit yourself. Im doing that right now. In the sense that, you know, i know if i slip up now that there is no such thing as local anymore, ok . When we did this seven years ago or we had done this 20 years ago, you know, if i mixed up something if i make a fool of myself or Say Something angry, whatever it would, maybe somebody would tell somebody. There is no such thing as local anymore. You are in a search engine. Marvin kalb, bam. And you just, you got a live with it. I do not particularly like it but it has upsides. You can learn about, youre in contact with more people all the time. I have just sort of given up on privacy in that sense. Edward snowden. You have written that from your point of view you would like him to come back to United States, stand trial, and lets see what happens. He would be given a fair trial. Does that mean that you consider that he has committed some kind of crime . You know, i have not really delved into that issue. What you just referred to is about as much as i have written. There is a reason for that because i find every week i read another set of revelations, and i read another set of arguments, pro and con, that make me feel one week one thing about him and one week another. This idea of traitor or whistleblower . Clearly, what he has exposed to me in the mega sense is the fact that the technology has gone way ahead of, you know, i think some of both the Legal Protections and even societys understanding of what it can do on one side. I think what he is also expose, though, there has been no specific case of abuse unless you count listening to angelo merkels cell phone. Someone at the nsa saying, i want to know what my exgirlfriend is doing. We have had several investigations that have also shown us that. I think it is a very vital case that was inevitably going to happen, and i think it is helping that it happened healthy that it has happened. I also believe we do need protection from these rising threats, and i find myself really torn. And what i said in that one column is that i also trust the fairness of the American People. And that i do believe, if snowden came back, and got a trial where he could properly make his case, it was not done in secret and could actually present his evidence, i just trust the judgment of the American People. I do not know how it would come out, but i think that trial could be a huge teaching moment and one that would trigger a healthy debate and reform. Tom, i want to ask you a question about the relationship of journalism, as you have practiced it and i and many others, if a journalist comes upon the big story, he did not know it was there, he discovers that. And writes a big story. And that is terrific. That is what it is all about. But supposing you come upon the story in the sense that you know someone who has a lot of secrets, like snowden with the nsa. And you participate with that source in the way in which that information is going to be given to the public, which the number of reporters in the snowden case actually did. Are those reporters, not the others, are those complicit in what may be a crime . And im going to give you a very unsatisfactory answer. I am not going to play the hypothetical game. That is not hypothetical. That actually did i realize that. And my answer is, i will answer for my own reporting and my own judgments, but i am not going to sit in judgment on others, especially in this case where my own newspaper was involved. Ok. I want to take a minute now to identify ourselves for our radio and television audiences. This is the kalb report. I am marvin kalb. And im here talking with the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Very frustrating only on certain issues. You have been at this for a long time. 33 years with the times. Upi before that. If you had it to do all over again, would you still do it as a journalist . Oh, god, this is the most fun you can have legally that i know of. [laughter] growing up i only wanted to be gave it over stem, be david aversham, i got to meet him. I have had, this is been the most amazing run. I have never had a bad day, and i have never gotten up in the morning and said, you know, i just do not want to do this anymore. It has been an amazing privilege to do this for the New York Times, and the people i met along the way, the experiences i had some tragic and some uplifting i would not have traded a moment for it, and i wish i could be 30 again. That is marvelous. That is wonderful. I heard that and still are perhaps a very good golfer. I do play golf, yes. But i am on the staff of golf digest. Did you ever consider being a golfer is your number one goal . When i was young i did want to be a professional golfer. E 1970 u. S. N th3e open. It was one of my great experiences in life. I always tell people the story that back then, it was a time, it was an amazing time when you think about before sports was so professionalized, that in the u. S. Open, you can not bring a pro caddy. What they did is they took caddies from each club and brought them to haseltine and they had a big bowl and all the names of the 179 players, and you stuck your hand in that bowl, and you couldve picked jack nichlaus, and i picked chi chi rodriguez. He made the cup. We won all four days. 20 years later, some Family Friends of ours were down in puerto rico which was his home course, and they ran into them in the pro shop and they said, chi chi, do you remember who caddied for you . And without missing a beat, he said tommy. Do,as Family Friends will they said, do you know he is more famous than you are today . [laughter] chi chi said, not in puerto rico. You have done every other bit of journalism. Have you ever considered at this point in your career shifting over and being a sports columnist . I have. I am literally on the staff of golf digest. They were owned by the New York Times. They arent now. Conde nast. Ed by so i write for them regularly. I have thought about it. Ive always wanted to write a golf book. After i wrote a book, my publisher came to me and said, what do you want to write for your next book . And i said, john, i really want to write a book on golf. And he said, the persian gulf . I said, no, i want to write a golf book. Now, you have been a columnist for almost 20 years. Yes. What are the changes that you have felt and experienced over the last 20 years being a columnist . Is it the same now as it was 20 years ago . Um, you know, the nothing has changed in the craft, marvin, of how you write a column. That is still, you know, you got to get an idea, you got to report it out, i believe i write a very reported colin, i think the best columnists are reporters or bring heart to their column. What changes is a couple things one is your reach. Through the web, we have 20 million unique visitors. That is huge compared to the 1. 6 million on sunday for the New York Times. Even to syndication. You have comments on your column now. So theres your opinion and there are 300 more or less every day of readers. Everyone is in a twoway conversation now, columnists. Do you have to answer the tweets or the messages that come into you . Maybe some people do. I dont because it is just too exhausting. I have mixed feelings about the comments if they are anonymous. So people can be disparaging and but i find if you dive into them and sometimes i have time to and sometimes i dont, you always find one or two just amazing gems, also. The kernel for a news story. That is just so smart. That is a big difference. And, when you think about it, i, so i inherited James Restons office, the office he used his last office in the Washington Bureau of the New York Times. When i became a columnist in 1995. What a great honor to inherit his office. I often tell people, you know, when mr. Reston was doing his column, im sure he came in and said, i wonder what my seven competitors are going to write today. And he knew them all personally. I knew them all. I do the same thing. I come into the same bill safires office now, and i say, i wonder what my 70 million competitors are going to write. I feel ive got 70 million competitors. But that doesnt change how you approach your responsibility or what it is that youre actually writing . No. But it does, you know, i did a book with Michael Mandelbaum that used to be us. And we have a chapter in the book called averages over, and it is about robots that can be above average. Average is over for everybody, including me. In the example i gave is a, i have 70 million competitors now. And hopefully i was never writing average columns, but i am just saying, i go to china, been going to china once a year for the last 22 years. And you know, when it probably first started going to china, i had one goal in mind and that was to write something that my motherinlaw in chicago would not know about china, something that she my motherinlaw in chicago back then had never been to china. So the truth is, i can go to china. Hopefully i never did, but, they have panda bears here. People use chopsticks. I could really write and average . Today, the New York Times you have the nytimes. Com in chinese. When i go to china now, i have a different goal, and that is to tell people they do not know about china. You want to pick up and distribute it in china. Right now we are shut down because we reported that wen jiabaos mother is worth 2. 7 billion. You cannot get it in china unless you can get through the firewall. If you go to New York Times. Com, youll notice one says international. That is the Old International herald tribune. And over the next one is in chinese letters. It is our chinese edition. That is a great thrill for me to have my column twice a week in chinese. And i am so frustrated that we are shut out of their. But there are a lot of chinese