em. that is what we're saying on the outset when we talk about the president addressing three different constituencies. i am sure he was worried about that in the united states, but he is overriding concern was to do what he feels is best for america. the previous administration had an opportunity to do what they thought was best for america. now he is saying, "it is my turn to play." host: "financial times" is calling it a new beginning. the "washington postquoted said that they're going to try to near the agenda to one issue.

. caller. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i find you a tremendous breath of fresh air. your intellect is most impressive. my specific question for you, sir, will take you back. sir, will take you back. ind your position in the united states, do you have difficulty in dealing with subcurrents within the different countries in the middle east? host: what do you mean by some parents? -- subcurrents? caller: we seem to use the phrase arab world and muslim world interchangeably. there seems to be a conflict within the middle east between the different ethnic groups as they break themselves out.

my specific question is, how do you deal with that in aljazeera? are you pressured by individuals or governments to favor one side or the other? i will call them almost ethnic battles that seem to take place, more or less continuously in the middle east. guest: the issue of defining who is arab and jew is not is a very tricky one. overall, i would like to say that era is not a race. it is not an ethnic group. arabic is a way of being. you are absolutely right. if you travel across the arab world, you will find people who define themselves in a plethora of different ways. that has always been the case in

the middle east. incidentally, i really think that is part of the cultural diversity and richness. . aljazeera has described itself as a channel who seized the world through arab allies. very difficult to establish what those arab eyes are. there is a sensibility are around issues like israel, palestine, iraq, corporations with iran fall in a different category because that is a much more clear-cut difference. that sensibility does seem to

unite people in the arab world from the atlantic to the gulf when it comes to issues like iraq and palestine. host: we are monitoring aljazeera now. is this what most of the world is now seeing? this is what we are getting right now? is there one version around the world or is it different here in united states? guest: what we are seeing here is international aljazeera. there are obviously two strands. there is one in arabic which is broadcast on satellite and you can see whether you have -- where you have set alight in any part of the world. you have aljazeera english which is broadcast on cable and it is still trying to put itself on cable on a large scale here in united states.

incidentally, if i may do it quick and fort up as your english, as joof july 1, it will be on cable in the washington, d.c., area. these are two different strands. in many ways they represent two slightly different perspectives on the world. out the serb -- aljazeera arabic is catering to a specifically arab audience. in the middle east and elsewhere. al jazeera english has a broader perspective. it is broadcast in english. it addresses so many different audiences in various parts of the world, including the american audience. host: we are talking to abderrahim foukara from al

jazeera. jimmy is on the phone. caller: i have a concern about hypocrisy. barack obama goes abroad and talks about democracy. i find it fascinating because you do not have democracy in the united states. there is an issue in terms of the treatment of african american people in america. i wonder why al jazeera does not deal with the injustices for african-americans in the united states. guest: there is the issue of hypocrisy in the issue of what al jazeera covers in the united states. as far as democracy is concerned, i'm speaking as a non-americans living in the united states. the american political system is an amazing political system

treat it is capable of redress corrections. it has checks and balances, freedom of speech, the first amendment. it is obviously not the perfect political system. it does have its failings. we, in the arab world, clearly have a big deficit -- a big democratic deficit. while there is some hypocrisy in the u.s. president going to preach democracy in the middle east while there are problems here in the united states, that does exist. but to compare the state of democracy in the arab world to the state of democracy in the united states is a major misleading or overreaching effort. initially, the focus of al jazeera in the united states was

washington, what happens politically in washington. we gradually started to widen the circle and cover things in other part of the united states. we cover not just the political stuff. we try to cover social, cultural, religious topics, including the issue of race. we have covered the issue of race extensively during our extensive coverage of the election up to 2008, obviously. what happened in katrina was one aspect of it. what is creating reverberations about this issue of hypocrisy that the caller was talking about is when people in the middle east selling was going on in iraq after the invasion, the chaos, and the effort by the bush administration to take

democracy to iraq peepe. people then saw the issues around katrina. that caused confusion. how can a government with its own problems try to export democracy to other parts of the world and the middle east? i go back to my fundamental argument. that is that you cannot compare the arab world with the united states in terms of democratic systems. >> another reminder, a chance to see the president's speech sunday morning at 10:30. the president held a press

conference with german chancellor angela merkel today in dresden. he said the buchenwald camp is the ultimate rebuke for those who deny the holocaust. he will mark the 65th anniversary of the deep-day invasions' tomorrow. -- of the d-day invasions tomorrow. >> panels and offers on the economy, globalization and the merkel worker, homosexual rights, civil rights and so turner truths -- sojourner truth. later, stanley greenberg on

advising bill clinton, tony blair, and nelson mandela. he is interviewed by mary matalin. and live on sunday, bill ayers. his latest book is "race course." for a complete schedule, go online to booktv.org. >> now a house hearing on state secrets. the chairman is co-author of legislation to make it harder for the state secrets privilege. this is about 90 minutes. >> the hearing will come to

order. today's hearing will examine the state secrets privilege. the chart recognizes himself. the legislation that i have introduced with other members of the committee would codify a uniform standards with dealing with claims of the state secrets privilege in civil litigation. the last congress at an oversight hearing. our experience has demonstrated destructive impact that secrecy can have on our nation. for the rule of law to have meaning, liberties and rights must be enforceable in the courts. separations of powers concerns are highest with regard to executive branch contact.

-- conduct. claims of secrecy have been used to conceal matters from congress. that has been the case with respect to the use of torture, use of illegal spying of americans, and other matters of national importance. let me add that this issue is perhaps the most important issue this committee will face because this committee is charged with enforcing civil rights and liberties under our constitution. there is a maxim of law that says there's no right without a remedy. if the government violates a right and kid that you were tortures you or burns down the house, wiretaps you, whatever, how you and force your -- how do you enforce your right against the government? congress could exercise

oversight. the victim could sue the government for illegal wire tapping, whatever. if the government can eliminate that lawsuit on the pleadings by coming into court and using an incantation of the words "state secrets," because we say that trying the case would necessitate the revelation of state secrets, then there is no recourse to the courts and no enforcement of rights, and rights without a remedy are illusory. we must put some limits on this use of the doctrine. the same pattern of resorting to claims has been evident in the courts. while the bush administration did not invent the privilege, it perfected the art. that privilege has been abused

by prior administrations to protect officials who have been behaving in illegally or improperly or in an embarrassing manner rather than protect the safety or security of the nation. a landmark case is a perfect case in point. they sued the government for negligence, stemming from a fatal air crash. the government refused to produce the accident report, claiming it would reveal sensitive secrets that would endanger security. the supreme court concurred. half a century letter -- later, the report was found by the daughter of one of the engineers and it revealed no state secrets. it could have been made available. it revealed that the crash was caused by government negligence, which i suspect other real

indication -- the real reason for the invention of the state secrets doctrine. protecting from the government from embarrassment, not petrotecting national security, was the real reason. in the pentagon papers case, the solicitor general or the supreme court that publication of the information which pose an immediate danger to national security. 18 years later they knowledge he had never seen any trace of a threat to national security from the publication of the intermission and admitted the principal concern is not with national security, but with government embarrassment. it is important to protect national security, and sometimes our courts have to balance the need for justice with considerations. congress has balanced these important demands. in the criminal context we

enacted the classified information procedures act. in fisa that we set up procedures for the courts to look at sensitive materials. we can and should do the same in civil cases. our system of government have never lied with assurances at face value. presidents and officials have been known not to tell the truth on occasion. this is especially in the truth -- in their interest to concern -- to conceal something. in the words of the ninth circuit, the executive cannot be its own judge. to allow that is to abandon all the protections against tyranny that our fan -- founding fathers

established. courts have a duty to protect national secrets but also have a duty to make an independent judgment as to whether claims have merit. when the government is a party, the court cannot allow it to become the final arbiter. the purpose of the legislation to is to make sure that the correct balance is struck. i am is supported that the department of justice has declined to discuss this issue at this hearing. i have met with the attorney general and i understand review of this policy is under way. they continue to take positions that are remarkably similar to the last administration's. i hope this is not a sign of things to come. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. i yield to the distinguished ranking minority member, the

gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner. >> the state secrets privilege is a longstanding doctrine the supreme court most recently described in the case. in that case the court made it clear that if that court, after giving up her rit -- giving appropriate disclosure of information would harm national security, parties are obliged to dismiss the case or limit disclosure of information as necessary. under this doctrine people went -- with a legitimate claims are not denied access to review. the doctrine allows judges to personally review any sensitive information. while this doctrine may occasionally disadvantage someone suing in court, it is vital to protect the safety of all americans. the roots of the state secrets privilege extends back to chief justice marshall, who held that

the government need not provide any information that would endanger the public safety. in the modern era, congress debated the issue of the privilege under federal law in the 1970's, but chose to maintain the status quo including elements of the privilege put in place by the supreme court in its reynolds' decision. the fourth circuit court of appeals recently deployed the doctrine in affirming the dismissal of a case concluded that the state secrets privilege has a firm foundation in the constitution. it is surprising that the privilege has played a significant role in the justice department's response to civil litigation arising from counter- terrorism efforts. the state secrets doctrine remains supported by today's supreme court, even in its decision granting rights to terrorists. justice kennedy acknowledged the

government's legitimate interest in protecting sources and methods of intelligence gathering and stated the expected district court will use its discretion to accommodate this interest. he cited the reynolds case, i mentioned earlier in doing so. i oppose any efforts, including this bill, that invite the court's to deviate from the some procedures they correctly follow to protect security information. the bill would preclude judges from giving way to the executive branch's assessment of national security. it would authorize courts not to use proceedings in conducting a review of claims. it would prevent courts from being able to dismiss the case from the government -- when the government cannot defend itself without using privileged information. the obama administration is not enamored with the approach of this legislation. it has adhered in court to the doctrine as asserted by the

previous administration. according to the editorial page of "the washington post" says it is hard is distinguish the obama's administration from the bush administration's position. last congress legislation essentially the same as this one was co-sponsored in the senate by joe biden and hillary clinton, who are now the vice president and secretary of state. this year president obama, the vice president, and the secretary of state have gone silent on the bill. when asked about it, the vice president's communications director said no comment on this from here. the legislation goes exactly in the wrong direction.

so much so that even president obama, the vice president, and the secretary of state are running away from it. so should we. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you. the president is running away from a lot of things, said this is just one more of them. -- so this is just one more of them. that does not mean that consideration is just as important. we have been here before, ladies and gentlemen. there are some secrets we have to keep away from citizens and congress people and everybody else, bloggers, but wait a

minute. which ones? that is what we are here to try to sort it out. we did not say obama state secrets. state secrets have been used so much to keep things secret that should not have been kept secret. that is the problem. by the way, let's take a look at the great statements of the president on this subject. he said we have got to rein in state secrets privilege is. he has acknowledged that the privilege is over broad and over used.

he also plans to embrace several principles of reform. he has agreed the state secrets should not be used to protect information merely because it reveals the violation of law or it may be embarrassing to the government. his administration has also continued pressing an aggressive view of the state secrets privilege is in the court, adopting arguments perfected by the prior administration. earlier, this year, in the mohammad khatacase, the

administration maintained that the prior administration's sweeping assertion that the very subject matter of the case was a state secret and that that should prevent judicial consideration of the case. the case was about torture. a few months later, another case was brought against the government for all unlawfully spying on its own citizens. our administration again sought outright dismissal, arguing that litigating the case inevitably would require the harmful

disclosure of state secrets and that the court need not examine any actual information on whether the case might proceed. it is too secret. we cannot even talk about it. what do you mean, a remedy with rights? this is a right, apparently without any remedy at all. it is too secret to talk about. don't you get its? -- did you get it? we cannot even hear the case to determine whether there is a right or a wrong or whether it is a case that was brought in error. we remain encouraged that the administration is taking a fairer review of the state

secrets privilege, and his this assurance, number 44, that he will deal with congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government, and we cannot sit idly by -- if we are co-equal, then that is what we are going to assert. in closing, chairman nadler, it is unacceptable that the department declined to even come to this non-secret meeting. nobody is here. what is that about? they could not provide a witness.

why? there is a review pending it is not solved and until it is resolved, they do not want to come before this could-equal branch of government with them. -- cote-equal -- co-equal branches of government with them. it is that -- it does not sound very co-equal to me. they could hess sent somebody saying what we are doing is not concluded and we understand your concern about the matter. what is with this state secrets business? let's see how far we can go. i am so glad to see