tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 15, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EST
then, freedom house director david kramer details his group's annual report on global political role rights and civil liberties. later, george washington university law professor talks about a case currently before the supreme court testing the constitutional amendment which says police may only enter a person's home after showing a grounds that a crime is under way. "washington journal" is next. . .
collinsville, illinois >> what do you think about this? to think that they are not as cape able or vicious >> from cleveland ohio >> what do you think? >> i think women should be able to serve in front line combat if we want equality, totally, we have to be willing to be equal in our performance. now that they have don't ask,
beside me because it's a woman she could be married or have a child and stuff and keeping her alive. i would be protecting the lady and killing someone else that's exactly what i do. i been raised to always protect women >> are you saying you would be districted in a sense doing a job of what you have to do? >> no, it is double jeopardy. >>
caller: as long as they can pass exactly the same physical things the hen can and do the aim physical things, they should be able to serve on the battle front. if there is two physical requirements, i don't think it's fair. they have to be as strong and cape able of anybody else on the battlefield battlefield. corina: how far do you think it will go saying that the
boat full of women. corina: what do you think the answer is? caller: the way women are socialized and raised. i'm not sure the outcome would have been the same. corina: what do you mean by a that caller: the socialization of women in the country as a whole caller: i'm on active duty right now. i do not believe we are equal. we can't do some of the things
you can do. we are capable of doing some things. i do not agree with putting women on the front line? host: can i ask you what led you to those conclusions? caller: some of the things i've seen, it affects people differently. you don't see millions of women going out hunting. some of them do, why do we have to prove that. it shouldn't have to be that you live up to the standard of what the guys do. that's my opinion. yes, you can serve in the military. you have a lot of people who are comfortable with who you are. they want to say, hey, i'm just as tough as the guy.
you may be mentally and physically. there is certain aspects of that. most men are stronger than women. that's not something i made up. that's the reality. corina: what do you do in the military? caller: i'm an logistician host: you are still actively serving? caller: i am. >> host: we can take your comments on twitter. flu caller: it is so grateful to me. i am a religious woman.
i am 75 years old. when you look at history. it was all men, no women. we were put here to raise children and raise them the right way. now we want rights in america. everybody wants rights. the right is fine. we need to have respect for everybody. we need to fight children not wa wars i do not believe a program is responding
>> behind the desk. all of that is forced wild for children. >> you never know what you are going to do. i don't know how good you are trained for it, you will panic. talk about body bags, there's body bags. yes, they will think so. you know what, they have these gay right things, people. that's their decision. i have nothing against that. but god does.
women are supposed to be humble to their husband and all of this and do what they plan to do in the service where they need to be other than gurns. >> the new york times has a story about michael cooper. interest adds up to a $1.3 trillion bill for the state. the interest is on the billions they baroed. the interest costs represents only a slifer. when it comes to states,
when it comes to front line, nine times out of ten, you put a woman up against a man in a physical battle there may be that one woman that comes along and over power a man >> in ee feesians it talks about wives submitigating to your husbands as unto the lord. back in the bible days, you had men going out and fighting the battl battles host: we'll leave that there.
host: adding to the conversation caller: we go to marty, go ahead. i think if a woman chooses the service, she has the right to choose whatever position she wants to. she has a right to do that. i respect women serving in the military. do you think men currently serving on the front line. it is ordered by the commander and chief.
guys it is not always weather they can but whether they should. sometimes in combat, they go days or weeks without a showers. sometimes they don't have rest rooms. i just can't vision seeing that happening that's my opinion. there are very confident women i didn't mind serving next to host: i say they serve money rolls but it has to change as far as the front line. caller: i just don't see the female body put through that.
i could be wrong. i've been wrong before just like the president and vice president. they never served but they repealed don't ask don't tell. >> is it simple? caller: not remotely. when you have to get out there and do it, it is totally different. i'm giving you my opinion. i'm not saying i'm right or wrong. thanks to washington journal and c-span. have a great day. corina: this is what you think about. we can do so off of email.
we add with new technology someone that doesn't identify themselves says i served in afghanistan. most women who do she is talking about healthcare. here is what you have to say talking to reporters about the topic. >> rather than work on jobs in the economy which clearly is there in the number one priority. it does present the opportunity for us to remind people what the new house leadership and majority is voting to take away
the kind of freedom that can loosen the choices and connections they would not have an opportunity to forecocoa pays parents would no longer be able to coach their children on their plans. we can have a conference reminding people what is at stake. insurance companies who patrolled -- host: that's canalling reen
sebelius. final times. the fed miss read dangers of the housing crash. they spotted most of the issues that would cause the 20067 and 2008 crisis. members of the fed discussed the possible bubble of house prices. they decided that they either could not or should not do anything about it. we don't necessarily see profound consequences. that's from the financial times this morning.
host: virginia on the phone. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was married to a soldier currently retired. i know i would not want to be on the front line. i do know there is a place for women on many different areas but to be on the front line, there is a more vul ner automobile and more rates occurring. i think it mayham per their ability to reability. when they come home and look at their children and seen the children that they have had to kill in their minds.
how is that going to affect them not to mention the fact that the body of a woman is constructed so that she's going to have to have needs she may not be able to address when she is out on the front line fighting in war. i don't think women should be on the front line not by any stretch of the imagination. corina: the number that has to be built up by women. i think our family values we need to re-evaluate a recruiting system of men at this stage
which we are in at the time put the men where they are no longer the leader of a house hold. i cannot see a husband putting his wife in the combat position. a father putting his daughter or a brother putting a sister in that sit wigs. a man old school should stand up and make sure that the women have the opportunity to stay home and welcome their soldiers back. thank you. >> the mental cape abilities of women doing the job if you have a 185 pound soldier and a 105
>> i just finished writing a play of a woman serving in the front lines while her boyfriend is a civilian in california. i don't see the problem. corina: some people brought up the physical, mental, emotional demands. caller: but they are already serving they are already capable of doing it. they are doing it now. unfortunately they are being killed in action and wounded
they are already doing the job. that's my argument. corina: tack overwhelma washington. you are next. go ahead. i can remember 1970 when women wanted to be equal to the man. women are not as strong as a man i don't understand why all of a sudden women need to be put on the front line. i heard the troops say you put a gun in a woman's hand, she will out shoot a man. there are a lot of jobs in the military women can do other than be on the front line i've heard men say that the average woman
can out shoot a man i've heard that from my husband who was in the military. the repayment of the obligations. the american international group paid down the 130,000 taxpayer bail out selling off what has become a 92% stake held by the department. one of the major goals was to remove the enormous amount of the debt. it is expected to receive more. on the veteran's line, phil. >> i believe women are 100person
capable of doing everything men can do in combat. the elephant in the room is what happens when you inter great the combat unit on the day-to-day basis. the general soldier is 18-20, sexually active and now you have women and men being forced into situations where you have to challenge their ability to be professional. anybody who has ever served in the military knows that the bond you develop in the military is tight. you are brothers forever. you add the draw and attraction, now you have the potential of
from women especially women of my kind. i am a black woman. we should not serve the front lines. it changes everything of our army. we need to get our kids wandering aimless li and make them serve two years to create some discipline. thank you for letting me share my opinion. corina: california. go morning. caller: this is interesting here's the deal. if you are human or american you want to strief to do something bigger than yourself. i know some men who should not be on the front line.
gay, straight, it doesn't matter. if you are striefing for something bigger than yourself, national, historical can you step up to it? if you think you can, you should be allowed to step up to it >> saying women should be tested to see where they work best. a grunt is a grunt. caller: i'm an old veteran. i'm 75 and from the old school there's one thing that would turn me against this whole idea. taken prisoner of people that
believe in that sharia-type of punishments. the collapse of the government there. that and other countries the notion of free countries are the topic of our discussion putting out a report we'll talk fw this and other events. several papers this morning are out. our first guest will talk about that and other issues. we'll be right back.
>> a visit to the boo owe of engraving and currency, a discussion about the first state to succeed from the union, south carolina. all weekend. every weekend on sfn 3. see the complete schedule on c-span.org slash history bringing hundreds to washington to experience firsthand. the best way is to reach out to someone in need and make an ongoing commitment to need.
caller: i'm a little on the right on most issues not right enough on others i would characterize my views in support of the bush agenda i tend to be more conservative on spending and tax issues there's a new head of the r&c. all going to have to take practice of doing that. the way you win this is by playing a very complicated insiders game.
sun rose up in the morning so it is attributable to my presence on the scene. we heard i lot about rhetoric and tone what's your thoughts on th that we had an individual who appears on everything we see i would encourage your viewers to go to the report. i did a two-problem report. i think it is important to understand those there's a whole mix in terms of funding mental
the reason i say these things are diskreet problems, i really did come to the conclusion that they are not facted. this is a brain development disease it exists cross culturally. you'll see as many people in other countries as in the united states. people didn't appreciate we were dealing with a mental health issue and rushed to play politics with it. corina: the column is called right turn? guest: that's correct. usually 7-10 pofts during the week. i take saturday off. i made an exception for c-span. sunday, we do three or four
to address. i'll be covering an important event in florida which is the hispanic leadership network. it was an out reach to explain what the republican party is about and why they think hispanics would benefit as would all americans. the republican party has to do the same thing with the african-americ african-americ african-american s. life shows up. we now have alan west as a new prominent leader emerging. i think it is a work in progress. >> naples, florida. go morning. caller: listen. i think michael steele got a bad
break in this time around. i really do believe i'm a member of the tea party, loosely affiliated to it. i was really upset with for instance the senate republican leadership. i didn't want my campaigns going to someone i didn't necessarily agree with. we caught up. this day and age, you can donate to the person more in line with your thinking. that took a lot of the fundraising away from the republican leadership. i don't necessarily know that's going to be michael steele's fault. i don't suspect they are going to have as much or more success.
caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i ran for the u.s. house as the green party member against don sherwood in 2002. so i have been studying the conservative movement since 1995 when newt gingrich and the gang came out, illustrating that the republicans wanted to zero adult funding for enforcement on regulations regarding sales of tobacco to minors. it seems to be that the agenda of the republican party, through the wall street journal observations, is that they want to sell drugs to children, star wars for lies, they are completely involved in the banking industries, so i am wondering about the future of conservatism. how is that conservatism to be slaves to corporation? that is what the democrats and
republicans are. where are americans going to go down the road from here? we have to separate ourselves from this corporate control. i heard you say that you have vigorous foreign policy. that sounds like code for empire. we should not have an empire. a marine general said there -- says is that we should not have our troops stationed all over the world. guest: i disagree with everything you just said. when you make a fascism and analogy, they get kicked off of my block. host: you have a couple of columns devoted --
guest: correct. he is clearly present his visibility right now. although he has yet to make a formal announcement from his advisers, it is clear that he is running. i think he is doing several things right now. the rap on tim is that he is too nice. for ordinary people, that seems a bit odd. i think that has to do with whether he will be stalwart enough. i think the concern was that he was a little wishy washy. he put out a book showing some of his policy successes as the minnesota governor and also by making speaking appearances, in which i think his rhetorical skills have improved quite dramatically. at the press club, you saw someone who memorized his speech with no notes and no
script, who was very emphatic and used parallel construction that was uncontrolled and unfair to get the crowd more involved. i think he did very well. i would also say that tim polawlenty enjoys a fair amount of success from liberals and conservative media outlets. i think they look at him as someone who is credible and a reasonable, someone who has a very good record. whether the factors into the race or not, that remains to be seen. he is clearly making the rounds and is a very solid from the conservative perspective on health care, the budget, on taxes, a lot of the core issues that republicans are focusing on right now. host: you talked about mitch
daniels as well. guest: i made the case yesterday that i think he is running into trouble if he tries to run for president. he has not been gathering staff or making a huge number of public appearances. he is quietly biding his time. i think in this political era, you cannot really do that while you are simultaneously quietly talking to media. what happens, criticism and hot shots mount and you are not equipped with an infrastructure to respond. he made a comment last year, calling for a truce with conservatives, setting off a firestorm of criticism. he did not have an aggressive infrastructure to push back on that issue. there have been recent stories on his less than impressive record in indiana as compared to
a very good record with the cato institute. when something like that happens, it politician has to respond or begin to shift the narrative. mitch daniels has been an excellent governor in indiana. he was not able to do so. i think the danger for him is the best staffers who get gobbled up by the other candidates. there is not an a-team left and a lot of criticism builds up and it almost becomes a foregone conclusion that a race is not going to happen. there has been a lot of speculation that he does not really want to run for a national office, which is quite understandable. host: what is the narrative on sarah palin?
guest: she is the most controversial political figure in the current era. maybe she makes the top-10 of all time. she has very, very passionate supporters, many in the tea party. from the perspective of many conservatives, she got a bad rap in 2008. she was called ignorant or stupid. she was, i think, a little bit of a victim there. now, as she moves into the limelight, clearly as a potential presidential candidate, people are beginning to assess her on her merits and on her speeches. so she has come under more criticism, including conservative criticism. i think they are very concerned that she does not have the tone or presence that is necessary in
these troubled times. it was a bad week for her. she was named as having the worst week because we have this contrast. a president obama gave a compelling speech in arizona that was widely celebrated by conservatives, moderates, and democrats, and then you had sarah palin putting out this video and getting tangled up in this issue of blood libel. whether that term has meaning of side of the jewish context, it is not really relevant. she created a firestorm of criticism and not looking all that presidential. i think that realization is beginning to filter through the republican party. is she going to run? that is the 64,000 other question. host: gene from connecticut. caller: hello.
i just wanted to make a couple of comments and thank you for c- span, by the way. s. rubin mentioned a calming down the rhetoric, but i want to say that when we are covered in and out reaches manner, with a huge majority of the population wants one thing, and the government does something entirely different, the rhetoric would become very outrageous, and it should. we should speak up when the government is not representing the people. that is the first comment. ms. rubin mentioned she gets ticked off when she disagrees and does not respond. that is not the american way. the american way is to speak up and do something about what we
do not want to. how many people have thought about what the rhetoric must have been before our revolution? guest: i will take their second question first. my objection with the caller was about the fact that he made an analogy with fascism. the first question is an excellent one, and that is can you be forceful and passionate and yet still be settled? i think there are two important things to keep in mind. civility does not mean it when wimpiness or wishy washy-ness. when you express arguments, you should avoid personal objectives
and stick to the issues. even if you think that is not good in it of itself, living in a free democracy, it is an intrinsic value because you are not going to gain people on the fence by using very extreme rhetoric. i have argued about this before. there was much discussion during the week about rhetoric, that is good for both sides if they want to advance their ideas. i go back to ronald reagan, who treated his democratic opponent tumor with grace. he was never one to be little his political opponents. he was indelibly cheery and optimistic and positive, and i think that should be the model for a lot of conservatives. we also see it in some other politicians who are out there.
i think that makes people more effective than promoting their views. host: chicago, you are next, on our democrats line. caller: chris christie is a bully. guest: there is no response to that. it is not useful in any way or will convince anyone, so i do not have the response. host: one story dealt with the political conservative action a conference held in d.c. some of the people that normally participate in this event, are pulling out because there is a gay republican group participating. what is your thought on the story? what is going on under that? guest: i have been covering this, and as you explained,
several conservative groups, and it is unclear whether they have any membership behind them, there are advocacy groups. some of them may have a mailing list but i am not sure if they represent the views of the electorate. they have objected to the appearance of gop proud, who wants to participate. this is a group that joined hands with the susan b. anthony list. they oppose abortion, which is a huge issue in the community on the right. these people said they were coming, we are not, and we are leaving. i think this is a terrible movie. brabant bonn -- terrible move.
i think it is backfiring. we just had another presidential candidate, senator john assumed of south dakota. it looks like one of these presidential candidates show up, it simply says we are not buying that tactic and we want to talk to everyone. right now, the republican party has to be reaching out. to have these groups go home, i think it is a mistake, and i think it will basically lose this debate. i think all these presidential candidates are going to show up. host: when it comes to the party, are social issues giving way to more economic issues? guest: there has been a lot of
discussion. if you look at the composition of the tea party, many of these people are social conservatives. the dialogue and the agenda is heavily economic because those are the issues before the country, but i don't think the republican party is going to deviate much from the social conservative agenda. they have very strong ideological reasons for pursuing that, and to a degree, we missed the boat when we talk about social issues. with about abortion and gay rights, these very hot-button issues. the tea party was founded with a rant on cnbc over the issue of subsidizing mortgages. it was one of personal responsibility. do you want to be playing -- do you want to be paying for your neighbors mortgage?
these are social, moral values, and to that degree, i think that is what the republican party is all about. there is a false separation between social conservatism and the economic issues, which understandably are very important. i don't think, for example, that republicans are going to nominate someone who is pro- life. host: jennifer rubin wris a columnist for the "washington post." indianapolis, indiana, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about our governor, mitch daniels. i wish everyone out there in the united states could just watch the speech that governor daniels made. he talked about the republican party and what they were going
to do to save indiana. after that speech, which he talked about we having the lowest taxes in the nation -- our next-door neighbor are flooding the floodgates to come into indian art right now to move their corporations here. we are going to have lots and lots of jobs here in indiana because of gov. daniels. he is not a bully. he is one of the most intelligent men on the planet. he is a super nice guy. we could only be so proud to have our governor be the president of the united states and bring back stability. guest: i think the caller makes a number of excellent points. first of all, he is a nice guy and has a great sense of humor.
secondly, he is one of the most knowledgeable policy makers out there. he has an unusual ability that not all politicians have, and that is to have a complex issue and bring it down to simple terms and explain it. i think he has done that. i think the caller is right. he has accomplished a great amount in indiana, and i think he recently used an analogy to describe the state of illinois, saying he was happy to have all the jobs that are going to be fleeing from illinois. whether or not he becomes a presidential candidate, those ideas are very important, and i think he will continue to be a national figure, and he should
be and he should have a voice. i don't know if he will be president, but he could wind up with a cabinet position. host: another call from indiana on our democrats line. caller: good morning. due to your sensitivity to the f-word, i will not use that, but i believe the use of that word is an underlying serious issue there. with the corporation that owns all the media in this country and channels what they want and what they do not want on the air waves and on cable tv, it is a dangerous situation. one of the worst incidents is is that we are one of the biggest exporters of military might in the world. the former corp. blackwater started by eric prince and
currently he had to change his name due to bad public relations. they not only deal with normal services provided with supply and other activities with the military, but it recruit people from north carolina and i expect they used some people under the guise of security for covert operations. now we have a civilian agency making money on our taxes in areas commonly located near an oil pipelines, shipping lanes, and oil fields. host: what is your question for the guest? caller: what is your comment as far as creating, essentially, a corporate mercenary force? guest: i disagree very strongly. america is a force for good in the world.
we liberated 40 iraqis. it prevented genocide in europe over the bosnian conflict. it is the military that continues to be a force for a human-rights and democracy promotion, and i think we are doing what needs to be done. if we are going to have a democratic, freer and more prosperous world. when america shrinks from involvement from the world, bad things happen. i think president obama may be appreciating this a little bit better now. i think he ran a campaign on a lot of these liberal myths, that we were going to end these were very quickly. that we should get out of the way and focus on things at home.
in the course of the last few years, he has learned an important lesson, and that is america has to play a role in the world or we will have dangerous powers are rising. i think we have seen that in china and in russia, which is becoming an authoritarian state, and the united states needs to play that role. we need to keep the peace and defeat dangerous people, and we need to help those who are struggling themselves for the freedom of rights, political freedom, and economic freedom, not to mention religious freedom, which is a huge concern we have seen in the middle east recently. host: healthcare. guest: i think republican party has strongly opposed obamacare for a very good and legitimate reasons. i would imagine there is a handful of democrats who are
going to cross the aisle. i don't know if harry reid will bring this up for a vote. the senate rules are rather arcane and mastered by one mitch mcconnell who probably knows how to work better than anyone i know, so there may be an opportunity to get a vote on this issue. they will not have a filibuster proof majority for appeal. i think when this deadlocks, the next approach is going to isolate elements of obamacare and forced a vote on those topics. the administrative burden on
small businesses, providing states with a broader power to opt out of the system -- we have seen proposals on that. i think you will see a series of these votes. whether one or more catches on, we will see. i think this is the marker for the republican party for what they are going to run on in 2012. i think what it will be doing will be relatively popular. host: michigan on our republican line. caller: i am calling from michigan. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i would like to ask the lady about the arizona issue. let me turn my television down. that is the problem. host: it is this about the -- is
this about the shootings from last week? caller: yes, and the effects on the conservative community. that share of that was planning rush limbaugh -- that sheriff that was planning rush limbaugh and all of the conservative leaders for rhetoric that he considered a violin -- i was wondering why there was not one conservative leader who stood up and asked him why it that sheriff did not do his job and protect that lady? i live in a little town with a population of 1000 people. we just got our first red light a little while ago. at our town hall meeting, we always have two sheriff's when the congress people show up. in that community, which some
violence in it, there were no policemen to protect her, and nobody stood up to that man and said you are passing the buck to everyone except yourself. guest: if you look at conservative commentators and figures pushing back on this notion that political rhetoric or conservatives were responsible for the incident, i think it was interesting to see the degree to which to republicans have figured out the rapid response game. i think republicans caused some good this time around. as the facts of marriage, what we have seen is that the underlying faults -- as the fa facts emerge, i think they will find that they never brought in
the mental health authorities. the reason they felt they could not do that, i think, is a story yet to be told. as far as the sheriff, i think it was completely inappropriate. there was a column by in the mccarthy -- andy mccarthy about this point. i think he did himself no good and his political future is no good. it is not going to be noticed. host: you brought up immigration. the project that president bush had started is being dismantled by the obama administration. what do you think about that? guest: we have been unable to find any consensus to solve this problem. i think in order to get conservatives on board, in any
administration, they are going to have to put forth a security- first proposal. i spoke to norm coleman the other day who is a prominent republican, a moderate guy who has been successful in hispanic outreach. he said it is really about the rule of law. they have to put policies in force that will enforce the border. i don't know the administration's reasoning for this. i partnered with company -- with many company on the right for a very robust legal immigration program. as a strategic matter, republicans like myself, if we want a solution, they will have to address the concern about border security. there are some problems with
correcting a so-called offense -- erecting a so-called fence. once you put up a fence, you are fencing in people as well. i think the administration has really failed entirely on this issue. they have not put forth their own proposal or address this underlying legitimate concern. they have tended to wave the bloody flag, as the metaphor goes, in terms of galvanizing this very hostile opinion. i think people sense of that. i think republicans would be very smart to put forth a credible, reasonable plan for immigration. i think that would help with their hispanic outreach, and i think it is the right thing to do. they are in a tizzy about this issue so it is very hard to get
republicans behind this issue. john mccain tried it under president bush, so it is not encouraging issue for republicans to take on. host: cynthia is on of republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to bring up the fact that the people have spoken this last election, and i believe the call to conservatism -- of our nation was founded on the word of god. they did not believe in socialism. that has been tried before and it did not work anywhere and it will not work here. i believe, on the subject of abortion, i am pro-life and anti-gay. it is not because i hate them. it is actually because i love them and it is for their own good. it is about jesus christ.
he loves the center but he hates it the -- he loves the sinner but hates the sin. guest: there was a lot of talk in 2008 and that the country had moved to the left. less trust of private industry, and we were finally seeing the american electorate shift. what 2010 showed is that we remain a center-right country. if the administration is going to pursue an agenda that is at odds with that, they are going to have problems and the congress is going to have problems. they have had a couple of relatively moderate, pro- business appointments within the white house. bruce reed as vice president joe
biden of's chief of staff. extending the bush tax cuts. i think this is a recognition that the country remains a center-right country. the republicans on the other hand have a challenge that it is a center-right country, not entirely a right country. i think the rhetoric issue toned down and it better handled makes it easier to reach out to others. this is the story of american politics. whoever gets the center wins. host: jennifer rubin, columnist for the "washington post," author of a blog. when is the next posting? guest: we will have some interesting stories up on sunday. i interviewed recently and are rosenfeld, the special envoy for
anti-semitism under the administration. will have a look at the appointment of bruce reid, what that means for the party and republicans as well. host: thank you. coming up in our last segment, which are going to take a look at the supreme court who heard a case this week about search and seizure. orin ker.alking to our next guest deals with issues of free countries and countries all around the world that are not free as well. we'll be talking to the executive director of freedom house, david kramer. we will be talking about that when we come right back.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: david kramer, what is the story about tunisia and freedom in the world? guest: this is the first time an arab leader has been forced from power, and a huge development. the president, after the rise up in the middle of december, he felt he could no longer rule and he felt he had to flee the country. this happened with massive violence. there were estimates of several school were killed in protests -- several scores of people killed in protests. get a new government will
finally respect the two nation'' ability to express themselves freely to participate in the political process, for journalists to be able to report -- those things have been deprived from the people of tunisia. host: what specific events led up to what we saw last night? guest: it began in december when a young man set himself on fire, protesting the state of the economy. he was unemployed and being harassed by the authorities, triggering a whole number of protests and movements by the people of to nietzsche, who then went into the capital. we saw -- people of tunisia, who then went into the capital. about 60 people were killed. the president of tunisia made promises that he would undertake certain reforms, that he would not stay in office beyond 2014.
it reached a point yesterday where he felt he had to leave. this will hopefully create new openings for the people and for the region. there was a person in cairo who tweeted about this yesterday. host: one of the things you do with the freedom house is to look at places in the world where there is a lack of freedom. talk a little bit about the recent reporton that. guest: the report that we issue was an annual survey started in 1972. we surveyed 192 countries and 14 territories around the world. what we have found for the fifth consecutive year is that democracy is receding. there was a reduction in the number of democracies, from 89
down to 87. this is a record decline for our survey. we also see a reluctance among democracies to push back on authoritarian regimes that are trying to challenge the efforts to promote democracies around the world. so, this report that was unveiled this week reflects some warring trends. host: who you cited many countries stepping up measures. guest: not only within their own borders, but they are more aggressive beyond their borders and, and they are supporting other authoritarian regimes that cannot always get the news. providing economic assistance, financial assistance, to prop up
these economic regimes. russia supports belarus, and russia and congratulated them on their rigged election last month. iran tries to undermine other countries in the region and threatens the one democracy, is real. -- israel. these countries and regimes rely on each other. they consult with each other. they actually you night and come together much more effectively, unfortunately, then democracies have in recent years. host: what does that mean for the recent treaty we signed with russia?
we have relations with these countries in question. guest: the united states has the obligation to stand for human rights around the world whether it is with china, russia, or any other country. the united states has interests in economic energy areas with countries, but the democracy interests should not be shortchanged. it is like a three-legged stool. democracy and human rights should not be the shortest leg of that stool. according to the washington post, president obama is planning to raise a number of human rights issues with china. secretary clinton delivered a speech yesterday, in which human rights was mentioned quite prominently in her speech. i hope this is a reflection that
human rights will in fact be a prominent issue during the visit when president obama went to china in november 2009, he was criticized for not raising human rights issues during that trip, for allowing the chinese to orchestrate his visit as a press conference. secretary clinton in february 2009 when she was traveling in asia and on her way to china was quoted by saying we cannot let these human rights issues interfere. i hope it reflects a sustainable change where human rights are going to get an adjustment. look at the reaction of the chinese government to the nobel peace prize committee's decision to grant the award. it pressured other governments to not attend the ceremony. president obama issued a good statement when the award was
announced, but there was precious little solidarity with norway. other democracies did not stand by norway. host: david kramer is the executive director of freedom house. if you want to ask him questions, here is how you can do so. do you find that it takes revolts to really make these changes have been? guest: in some cases. if we think back five years or seven years ago, -- the hope is you do not need of violence or an overthrow of the regime, that
regimes will come to understand that violating human rights, suppressing populations, going against minority groups -- that creates the very instability day are trying to prevent it. secretary clinton gave a speech a few days ago. she said those who cling to the status quo may be able to hold back the full impact of the country's problems for a little while, but not forever. others will fill the vacuum. we saw what happened in the tunisian. host: many of the people in the country are young people. guest: tunisia has a population of well educated people, a population of the " over 10 million. i think what we saw is that the population was driven by frustration with the economic
situation, with unemployment, but there were also very bothered about the corruption of the regime. from the wikileaks that were released, there was a cable exposing massive corruption by the president and his family. i think the people were already aware of that, but it had shown even more light on the situation. host: the report you put out for freedom house comes with a map with various colors. i would like to show the folks the map at home. what do the colors mean? guest: the corrine countries are the free countries around the world -- the agreement countries are the free countries around the world -- the green and countries are the free countries are around the world. the purple countries, which you
can see russia and china, but also in the middle east, those are 47 countries with 35% of the population, half of that being the chinese population. host: what factors do you have to look at? guest: political rights and civil liberties. we do not necessarily evaluate countries based on what the government do. that all these factors into our assessment, but we do and on the ground assessment of the state of political rights and civil liberties. the freedom of expression, speech, association, civil liberties, and the ability of people to choose their leaders in a free and fair fashion, to have a representative of parliament, independent media. all those things come together. there were some 23 different factors in the assessment, a
very rigorous process, that the colleagues of mine under toque. i attended two of the review sessions and i was struck by the igor in the report. we make sure that we do the best job possible in rating countries based on political rights and civil liberties. based on this course they get, that determines the color that they get. host: how can you look at it from our perspective when we have a different perspective? guest: we base it on a universal values, not american values. these are universal values, as well as other bodies and organizations that countries belong to.
where a number of these organizations have it charters that lay out basic principles, and those are also guides for us when we undertake our study. host: david kramer is the executive director of freedom house. from minnesota, you are first up, on our independent line. caller: i am calling to say with all due respect to the gentleman, it is true what you guys are saying. world of freedom is in decline, and that includes the great united states of america. i don't see how we have their rights to talk about civil liberties and freedom and all that junk when every single day they do something with the constitution to change the
amendments on it. number two, we do torture and all that and never hold ourselves accountable. our government is corrupt. how do we have the right to talk to the whole world -- to tell the whole world what is true and correct when we do not even follow the rules ourselves? that is my question. had a good day. guest: freedom house is not an arm of the u.s. government. we are a nonprofit organization headquartered in washington. we are bipartisan and been around since 1941. we are not representing the american government or the american government's position. no country is perfect, by any means, in the united states is no exception to that. the united states has a corrective measures in place, where there are ways to stop
with checks and balances built into the system, which are lacking from many other systems. because the united states is not perfect, it does not mean that many people around the world, human rights activists, do not look to the united states for moral support and solidarity. they look to us to stand up to authoritarian regimes. i think that has stayed the same regardless of the ups and downs that we may have in our own country. host: this is from donna who asks -- why is it so? guest: mongolia has a checks and balance system in place. it is a huge country geographically and a small country in terms of population, but it does stand out in the
region because it does have a system in place where officials are elected, or the media are independent and where activists are allowed to engage in whatever kind of activities and they want to without any pressure from authorities. host: sacramento, calif., our republican line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask you to questions. the first question is -- hello? the first question, we have a guy right now who lost an election. it has been more than a month. this guy is still in power. what we do to speed things up to get this guy out of there? he is creating problems for the region.
second, we have a country like ghana. the people of the country have demonstrated they want to work, and yet do -- you do not see the west promoting the country. the west is [unintelligible] the same things you are preaching, you are not promoting. the west is not backing them up. you have to promote the country's so you can see that we are behind you. that is my question, please guest: great questions. on the ivory coast, you are absolutely right that is a bad situation, where the incumbent president refuses to recognize an election that led to his defeat, refuses to cede power to
the victor in that election. the countries of west africa have united and have been pressuring the incumbent president to leave. he has not left yet. the united nations has defended the elected president. i think there has been a strong stance taken by african leaders of the united nations, the united states and europe, where they recognize it is very important for african leaders who lose elections, they need to step down and turn over power. we have seen problems in zimbabwe and in kenya, where the incumbent leaders refuse to leave. i think african leaders will come to discover that is a huge problem, and if they do not take a stand, there will be further problems throughout the continent. the problem is not solved yet.
there has been violence, but i think it is positive that there has been a strong stance taken by african leaders. in ghana, it is incumbent upon democracies are around the world to help these fragile, new democracies that are developing. there are programs, one launched in the bush administration that is continuing in the obama administration, that tries to provide support for democracies that are governing justly proud that is the criteria for receiving support. it is very important that the more experienced democracies in the world come to assistance, because if new democracies failed in delivering on the economic standards of living, economic improvements, then those new democracies could soon change colors on that map. host: you can check it out for yourself at freedomehouse.org.
what kind of information have you found? guest: freedom house has been around since 1941. we were founded by eleanor roosevelt. we are a bipartisan organization, which is to say our board of trustees are nonpartisan. we are headquartered in washington, and we also have an office in new york, as well as 10 offices overseas. we issue reports, such as the one we have been talking about this morning. we do programs that we undertake, supporting human- rights activists, journalists. we also engage in advocacy work, where there is in support of freedom of expression, working with congress, international
organizations, foreign governments in trying to raise awareness about human-rights issues are around the world. host: one of the things i read was about the use of social media. does that play a role in the future of these countries? guest: absolutely. we have seen it in a small country of -- we have seen it in a small country in 2009. people were text messaging each other. we have seen it in other places. we have seen it in china. i think the new communication has become an important tool for a human-rights activists and democracy supporters, to be in touch with each other and exchange best practices, whether it is blocking or text messaging, facebook, all these things are terrific new features and tools to help advance the cause of human rights and democracy. host: detroit, michigan, you are
next, on our democrats line. caller: good morning. mr. david kramer, i am very concerned about american democracy, particularly given the resurgence of conservatism here in america. the republicans were just reinstated as the maturity in the house of representatives -- as the majority in the house of representatives. boosting businesses' ability to control voting in this country, by allowing them to donate as much money as they can to control our electoral process. i am concerned that suffrage being a major pillar of any democracy, the people's ability to get out and vote for their preferences is going to be
controlled by big business, by conservative forces in this country, which actually want to see a minority, a small group of people, control the majority. guest: i think the caller is registering concerns that a lot of people have in this country. there is a number of people who would disagree. we have a political process where people are able to go vote for local representatives, national leaders, and even an independent judicial system that acts as a check and balance. that is what we have elections, so if people do not like what happened in the previous election, they can try to change it. host: this message from twitter
-- guest: there is no cookie cutter approach. i tend to think alike toro democracies are the best because they ensure leaders are accountable -- i tend to think that electoral democracies at are the best because they in short leaders are accountable. i would respectfully disagree. i think elected democracies are proven to be the best system. we have seen the number of democracies around the world decline. it is down to 115. there was one drop in the past year alone. elect barack democracies, i think, -- the electoral democracies, i think, are the
best. each country will develop its own way, respecting its culture and history. we are now trying to impose a certain model on countries. we are trying to support indigenous movements in these countries fighting for a human rights, freedom, and democracy. host: why is there a shift in mexico? guest: its has been a source of controversy. it is because of the state of political rights and liberties. due to extensive violence, where we see journalists and murdered and law-enforcement officials murdered, as well as innocent civilians -- host: because of the drug trade. guest: because of the drug >> you create an environment of self-censorship where journalists out of understandable fear do not want
to investigate and report on certain stores because they are afraid they will lose their lives. it is not necessarily a certain action that the mexican government has taken. it is almost the inability of the mexican government to control the level of violence there. host: saint petersburg, fla., republican line, go ahead. caller: with all due respect, i find quite holes in the information you give. i am starting to think that this is pro-fiction. if you say in the u.s. that freedom is declining, i would agree. then you start talking about countries such as venezuela who is actually sponsoring authoritarian rule in other countries. that is completely false. as a matter of fact, if you
compare venezuela to the u.s., you'll find that the u.s. has had intervention's every year of a multitude of different countries. for the last 70-80 years. guest: i guess i will have to respectfully disagree. on venezuela, you have president chavez who has shown no respect for the elections in the fall of last year that produced a very strong turnout for the opposition and after those elections, he used the old parliament to ram through emergency powers were the new parliament will not have the ability to block those powers. chavez has gone after critics and opponents and journalists and civil society activists. he supports the cuban government. he is in close ties with the russian leadership. he has traveled to belarus. the company he keeps would
strongly suggest to me that hugo chavez is not a democrat by a long shot. host: washington, d.c., there are democrat blind. caller: i would like to point out that you failed to mention the gude date of event that took place in honduras as well as one of the worst violators of human rights on the planet, saudi arabia. i would like to take onus with what you said at the beginning about a democracy called israel. human rights watch came out with their international respected report that called separate but unequal, israel's discriminatory treatment of palestinians in the occupied territory. i would like to point out that they said that palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin
depriving them of electricity, water, schools, access to roads while nearby jewish settlers enjoyed all of these state- provided benefits. while israelis sensettlements flourish, palestinians live in a time warp. not just separate, not just a cycle, but even pushed off their lands and out of their homes. host: what is the question for the guest? caller: how can you keep israel and saudi arabia off the radar and call israel a democracy when there are hundreds of thousands of israeli-palestinians who live inside israel that are still equally denied democracy as well as the glaring injustice of the occupied territories. guest: on egypt and saudi arabia, neither country is free. they are listed as not free.
egypt has terrible parliamentary elections that were much worse than those in 2005. i think we see continued disregard by the egyptian government for the will of the egyptian people. we also now see growing tensions between christians and muslims in egypt including a terrible terrorist attack on new year's eve of a christian church. israel is a real concern for many who are trying to see egypt moved in made more democratic agenda -- direction. saudi arabia's one of the worst as far as human rights oppression. there is no question. the caller and i would agree on israel. there are problems in israel. i don't mean to suggest that israel is a plus democracy. it has a system in place were the leaders are elected by a population where there is a lively debate in israel and a lively parliament. those things are also very
important for looking at the situation. i take the caller's point that the situation for palestinians living in israel is not good at all. that is something we also try to way we do the assessment. host: david kramer is our guest with freedom house. our next call is from our republican line from las vegas. caller: good morning cspan and good morning my fellow americans and david, you are a very smart man and i know you can probably answer my question after i make a few comments. i am very, very concerned about at the way our country is going. i believe we have been infiltrated at all levels of government by the socialist- communists that said they would take over our country eventually by never firing a shot at it looks like they have a lot of willing accomplices in the democrat and republican party. i call rhinos and republicrats.
i became active in politics in 1992 when ross perot can on this date. he talked about the giant sucking sound of our industrial base and it turns out nobody gives him credit. he was absolutely right. host: what is your question to the topic? caller: president bush during that debate mentioned three words that i cannot shake from my mind. new world order. it looks like it is being pushed by the obama administration because he has all these czars in the white house. when you are number one, there is only one way to go and that is down. guest: i think the caller, when you contrast what he now just said to some earlier callers, reflex that the united states is full of different opinions and diversities. some people are huge fans and supporters of president obama
and others like the caller we just had is the top -- are very critical of him. i think that is what makes the united states a very vibrant country. we have elections of a people can determine their leadership and i think that is how this country has operated for many years. host: birmingham, alabama, independent line. caller: i believe that the guest is absurd. i have been to some of the countries he mentioned. for example, moldova has a gridlock situation with ethnic tension and they have more political parties than we do. when i watch the media there, i am always in formed. i can pick up bbc and cnn and i can pick up russian media and romanian media. people are more literate. russia has over 40 political parties. it has more independent news
outlets. it has problems, for sure, but this guy has a right below argentina. it is just absurd. i am calling you from a city in the united states where two of the last four mayors are in prison for corruption. i believe there is a bias that this is a relative cold war. this person is speaking nonsense. guest: the collar and i will have to agree to disagree. the fact that the officials where he lived have gone to jail for corruption suggests that the system works. in officials engaged inappropriate behavior, there is a system in place that holds them accountable. in the case of moldova, a number of political clout -- party is a country as does not mean it is am vibrant democracyisoldova
after events in 2009, has made progress. they had elections at the end of november of last year and they seem to be moving forward in putting together a coalition government. the government that they had before the latest elections was making great progress in moldova. i have been there many times and i used to work in the state department. i know the country well and i think moldova is moving in the right direction slowly but surely. russia is a place where the government shows no respect for human rights. we have seen this with the verdict in the recent case and with the arrest of an opposition figure, the sentencing of him going to jail, murders of journalists and opponents of the russian government, crackdown against opposition activities, journalists who are afraid to
speak out and report. there's no question that russia belongs in the not-three categories. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to get the focus back on the united states and torture. mr. kramer keeps saying that we haven't system of checks and balances and that we cannot fix our government through voting. we voted for mr. obama in 2008. we voted for a constitutional lawyer because we thought he would engage in comprehensive civil liberties upgrade of the united states. we have recently had a president, mr. bush, who wrote a book and went around the united states bragging that he tortured people. he just doesn't care. show me how our checks and balances are working. mr. obama has continued it
renditions. he has targeted an american citizen. he has kept a bradley manning in solitary confinement which i view as torture. guest: let me be clear -- president bush has not gone around the united states to brag about torture. he has defended water boarding which he felt was not torture and many people do. there are different views on that. president obama, one of the first things he came out and said and did when he became president was to say that the united states would not engage in any torture including water board. he deemed water boarding to be tortured. what president obama has discovered including his promise to close down guantanamo bay where a number of detainees have been kept is that it is difficult to do. there have been a number of
detainee's transferred to other countries. his task has been made more difficult by congressional officials who do not want the detainee's to be tried in the united states or to be detained in the united states. president obama is trying to do the best he can on these issues. this was a campaign issue in 2008 where he was arguing that he would change a number of the practices that the bush administration engaged in. in certain cases, he succeeded at other cases it has proven to be more difficult host: lafayette, indiana, republican line, go ahead. caller: i have this article in my scrapbook that said that 75% of the people in the united states should have medical marijuana another article i have
says that marijuana is the number-one selling illegal drug in the world. if it was legalized it would hurt the mafia, the street gangs and the host: cartel's target how does that pertain to our discussion? caller: 75% of the people -- the senate doesn't do like we want i have not taken a position nor has freedom house. host: as far as the matter, what do you expect as far as changes in the future? guest: obviously, we want to see more green on the map next year. it will be interesting to see what happens in tunisia in light of the events in the last 24 hours and the last few days. it would be interesting to see what happens with a number of key elections around the world. if elections are not the only criteria by which we determine
and judge democracies. elections are a key part but so is independent judiciary settle society which is strong and active and independent media. those are key elements for democracies around the world. they are universal features of democracies. it is important to understand that an organization like mine is not trying to advance the american model. we are trying to advance, and features, universal features of democracy and human rights and that is what everyone should want to see, in my opinion host: their website is linked to our website. thank you. our last topic this morning takes a look at the supreme court as it revisits a case that looks at the use of search warrants. our guest will explain it and what it means as far as the case is concerned. we will be right back.
host: it is time to off load your video for the student'scam petition. the deadline is this thursday so get your video to cspan for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. this year top -- this year's topic is washington, d.c. through my lens. details, go to studentcam.org. >> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and public affairs. it is available everywhere.
find their content any time through the cspan video library. we take cs been on the road, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way. the span networks now available in more than 1 million homes operated by cable and provided as a public service. >> every weekend on c-span 3, and experience american history tv starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. eight hours of people and events telling the american story. -- 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses as top history professors and leading historians delve into america's past. american history tv, all weekend every weekend on cspan 3. >> starting tuesday, the house takes up the repeal of the health care law. watch the debate and final vote on c-span and go to c-span.org
to read the bill on line and continue the conversation on our twitter and facebook pages. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our last guest of the morning is orrin kerr. the supreme court heard a case concerning search warrants. can you give us the set up? guest: yes, this is a case coming from kentucky. it is about a drug arrest that occurred at apartment building. the issue is whether the police were allowed to enter the apartment without a search warrant. a search warrant is a court order that a judge approves that says you are allowed to enter into this place and search for evidence or arrest people. the government had reason to think there were crimes occurring inside the apartment but they did not have a search warrant. the issue in the case is whether the case -- the police were allowed to search the a pardon
without though search warrant or they had to stop and get a warrant and then search later. >host: the police are chasing a criminal and a cry goes into an apartment building and the crowd goes into an apartment and they did not know which apartment. what happens after that? guest: the police approach one of the apartments and a smell the odor of marijuana coming from the apartment. they had had an undercover spy report crack cocaine in. it turns out they picked the wrong apartment. the apartment where the odor of marijuana was coming from was a different apartment. they approached about apartment, knocked on the door, banged on the door and announced they were the police and there's testimony that they may have said they demanded to be let inside and there is other testimony that they did not. they banged on the door and heard a noise inside. at that point, the officers broke in through the door
searching on the theory that there was an emergency going on inside which the supreme court has called exit in circumstances. this is an exception to though warrant procedure. if there is some solid -- exception for the police, then they can enter. exigent circumstances is what this is called. the issue is whether they were allowed to justify their search given that the noise that they heard was probably a response to their own knock. the legal issue that the supreme court is discussing is whether there is a doctorine of exigent circumstances. host: why is the court hearing this case if a standard was set up? guest: the lower courts have
agreed to what the test should be for police-created exigent circumstances. if the fourth amendment requires the police to stop and get a warrant even if they have reason to believe there is evidence in my home. if the police can then take steps to create some sort of emergency, the requirement that they get a warrant doesn't have a lot of meaning. the big issue that the justices were struggling wewith was what is the test? what does the constitution require in terms of what law is the lower courts opposed to apply when the police - theexigency is improper? host: the fourth amendment has the right for people to be secure in their house against unreasonable search and seizure.
guest: this is one of the original aspects of the bill of rights and the constitution. host: the key word is unreasonable? guest: yes, the oral arguments last week, the justices were trying to figure out what does unreasonable mean in the specific setting of the police knowing there is evidence inside an apartment and hearing this noise. is it reasonable for them to enter or is it only reasonable for them to go back and find a judge and get a warrant and then return to execute the search? host: the supreme court is revisiting search warrants. that is our topic this morning. if you have a question, here is your chance to find out more.
justice scalia said this is a simple matter because in the case where the police went to the wrong door, the residents in there could have said that you cannot come in until you have a warrant. is it as simple as that? guest: what is a reasonable response to the police knocking at the door? the police not at the door, they bang on your door, what is a response an innocent person might have? the lawyer said that could include not doing anything. they might not open the door. justice scalia is active in the oral argument and he seemed to think a reasonable thing was to open the door and tell the police that i'm sorry i don't want to consent to a search. comeback with a warrant. the difficult issue is it is not like the justices have never had these sort of problems themselves or not terribly often. you don't end up on the supreme
court if you get a knock on the door from the police. this was a difficult question for them. they are trying to figure out what is a reasonable reaction for people to have. also, what kind of reasonable limitations should we expect from the police? one of the big issues here is it is common for the police to knock on the door and ask to speak to somebody and ask questions. it is a knock and talk procedure. that is generally considered lawful. the issue is whether the police can do that and if they could do that whether there is a difference of a bang on the door instead of knock on the door for if they demand entry rather than announce they are the police. where exactly is the line as to what police are allowed to do in these circumstances? host: it seems to be a case about s gues .
nuance. guest: some have said what you focus on whether the reaction to the police knocking is foreseeable. others have focused on whether the police conduct was legal. there are lots of different tests. what made it more difficult is under any of these different tests, it was not entirely clear how with -- how it would go and practice. host: we will talk more about the case as we go on. illinois, republican line, you are of first. caller: thank you. this is a hot-button issue with me. it has been a few years back. it was a moonless night at 3:00 in the morning and i got pulled over by a police officer because he could not tell by was wearing a seat belt.
it is sad to say but it seems to me we are getting into a society where the police have the ability to stop you for anything. they have the ability to enter for anything because laws are so convoluted. it is not a fair exchange because the people are trained to make a voluntary conversation of. voluntary. guest: the issue that the supreme court was looking at last week was specifically in the area of search warrant executed at a home which is different than the situation of an automobile stocks were generally no warrant is required. the caller is absolutely right, the police have a lot of leeway to make consentual stops and ask questions.
the idea behind all law is that anyone can ask somebody else a question. there is nothing wrong with that. surely, the police can as well. that may be a nice in theory but in practice, when a police others are walks up to somebody, it is us and you have to respond to the police officer. they create the impression typically it is not an optional conversation. that is one of the issues in the case. the police banged on this door and announced a they were the police and one of the issues that the supreme court was grappling with is how does a person respond to that? is it like somebody comes by like a traveling salesman that you don't want to respond to? or is the police knocking and announcing something so different that a different response is justified? that is one of the big issues that the justices were trying to figure out. host: one of the viewers ask and say that citizens are not
required to talk to the police and it is better not to. guest: citizens are not required to talk to the police. i was surprised at the oral argument the defense attorney said that if you don't want to enter the door when the police not, you don't have to answer the door. justice scalia responded that he thought that was an odd reaction. it seemed to me that is a perfectly plausible reaction and the constitution does not require you to answer questions by the police barrett if you are . the specific issue was when do the police create exigent circumstances? this case was special because there was a noise in response to the knocking at the door that the offers were consistent with somebody trying to destroy the evidence. the supreme court of kentucky said that noise could not be considered to try to justify exigent circumstances.
the u.s. supreme court is trying to figure out if that was in fact the case. host: can you distinguish between probable cause and reasonable suspicion? guest: probable cause is the constitutional standard. you can think of that as a reasonable likelihood, a good chance the evidence will be located there. when the constitution requires probable cause, studies have shown maybe a 60% chance that the evidence is likely to be there when the government of tens probable cause. reasonable suspicion is some sort of specific fact that there is something of what but it is a much lower degree of suspicion there is something fishy about the situation may be about the way someone is behaving and suggests that something is slightly off. you can't quantify it but maybe you can think of it as 20% rather than 50%.
reasonable suspicion is the standard for stopping somebody on the street and talking to them for a police officer to retain them for a few -- to detain them for a few moments. host: missouri, democrats line, good morning. caller: where i live, there is an overwhelming police force in some places. there is a mixture from urban to rural and i have looked everywhere. everywhere i go, it seems like there is an air of power with police officers. there was one rural county where there is not a mixture of race. when you cross over their bridge, there are cops everywhere. we had some visitors come in and write an editorial in our paper and they made it sound like it was the gestapo. you assume when you cross that bridge that your plates are bad. where are our rights?
i believe that lady justice is blind. guest: one of the issues that the supreme court has to grapple with in interpreting the fourth amendment is that the same rules will apply in radically different communities. there rural community and urban community, a high crime or low crime neighborhood and this is a real challenge for the supreme court. the constitution requires that are unreasonable searches and seizures be prohibited and reasonable searches and seizures be allowed. that reasonable/unreasonable law requires justices to interpret. the issue in kentucky verses king was how you figure that out in a case of subtly knocking on the door and hearing a noise inside. it is applying a general principle to a specific set of facts. i also want to point out that in this particular case, i talked to the king attorney leading up to the briefing. i was consulted on one side of
the table. what i say here today is my personal opinion host: justice ginsberg had said that she was concerned that they go to the apartment and sniff at every door. guest: this is the concern from the defendant's side of the case. if the rule is that the police are allowed to do anything law flat the door, they can not then say they are about to come in and listen. they might not have any particular reason to think there are drugs or any particular evidence of crime inside. what is to stop them from doing that? upon hearing some reaction, they now have probable cause. one of the problems with any of the different options and i don't they said supreme court found a good option in the one hour oral arguments last week is how do you limit the police so they are not using this to
circumvent the warrant protection? you don't want the police to say that we don't get what is because whenever we have probable cause, which is not, i hear a noise, and break in. you would not want that. if you don't go to that extreme, what about a rule that allows them to knock and what line do you draw? there are concerns on both sides host: as far as what you heard from the justices and what kind of questions were being asked, what kind of vibe did you get from them? guest: the justices were pretty skeptical of the defense attorneys case. they seemed to be inclined to rule in favor of the commonwealth of kentucky it was on a pretty narrow ground. my guess is that they will send this case back to the kentucky court saying that they have to look at the bigger picture and they cannot just say that that noise that was heard can be relied on because of the knocking. that is my guess although it is difficult to get a feel for
where all the justices are in that particular case. some of the justices are more vocal than others. in particular, justice scalia was absolutely involved in the oral argument. he was being very active. it may be that he is not one of the votes in the center of this particular court on this particular issue. if so, you might look at his questions and think it is clear that kentucky will win when maybe other justices who are more quiet are inclined to vote for king. it is hard to tell. sotomayor and kate and were more sympathetic. -- and elena kagan were more sympathetic. they seemed to be more inclined to see things from kiong's
perspective. it is hard to tell from the questions of the oral argument. many times, justices will play devil's advocate to explore the strength and weaknesses of both sides. you cannot tell from my specific question all the time. host: new york, thank you for waiting, on our independent line. caller: good morning. i have a quick comment and then a question. i live in new york fed seems there are two types of justice systems in new york. in the city and the state of new york, if you are a black person, the system treats you bear -- differently. if you are caucasian, they treat you differently. in 1986, there is a case where a reasonably educated lady was our raped and beaten and there
was tremendous pressure on the police to find the suspect. they went down to harlem and grabbed five young man. they made up stories on them. all of those young men were freed from jail but of the damage had been done. maybe a man's home is his castle. host: what is your question? guest: is there a time when the police do not create an emergency? guest: the problems of racial bias in the criminal justice system has been a problem as long as there has been a criminal justice system. these are issues that are being dealt with and the government continues to struggle with that
the state and federal level. i think we are getting better, but clearly a lot of progress needs to be made. in terms of whether the police can do whatever they want, there are a couple of concerns. this particular case is about that question. the purpose of the warrant requirement is to say that the police have to go to a judge who is not involved in the case or does not have incentive to give the police the warrant. the judge has to make that call. the requirement is usually very strong and sufficient on the part of the police. the difficulty becomes that if the police are outside the door and they hear the evidence being destroyed, and they start to
your toilets flushing, we should not expect the police to come back and a few hours. the evidence would be gone. it is a very difficult balancing issue. how the lot is being applied in practice is very critical. in the end, there is a question of line drawing and how much police power should be allowed host: that is one when you're said is that reasonable suspicion is a fairly low requirement. guest: it is relatively easy for a police up as to justify a stop based on reasonable suspicion. the probable cause requirement is higher. to conduct a search of a number the government will need
probable cause in most circumstances. it is not entirely clear if probable cause is needed to exigent circumstance issues. the standard for searching a on generally is significantly higher than the standard for stopping a person on the street and requiring them to answer questions. host: market heights, illinois, republican line, good morning. caller: this court case, i am waiting to see the outcome. i have the state police come to my residential family home. we allowed it. they can i ask them for a warrant three times and they said they did not need one. i have children and of by shut the door, they said they would kick in. i did nothing wrong and they did not find anything. they left and nothing happened.
they don't want to apologize or anything. the only appeal we would have is that a federal court? we always think of these police, all of them are bad, but people have to realize they are human like anyone else. they lie, cheat, and some of them are corrupt as well. thank you for cspan. guest: the caller is bringing out a specific case and it is difficult to know what actually happened in that one case. one of the difficulties of the fourth amendment is that it is quite typic difficult. if an individual in the home was on probation, that could lead to one set of rules. if somebody opened the door and invited them in, that could be another set of rules. there are very complicated
rules and the case in kentucky vs. king is dealing with a clear example of the police breaking and entering for law enforcement reasons. they not in the door and break in because they are trying to find drugs. host: miami, fla., thank you for holding on, we are talking about the fourth amendment. as you are calling, you can check our lines. before we go to the caller, the second part or the finishing part of the fourth amendment is search and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall be issued unless with probable cause. it seems like it is really laid out. guest: the requirements for obtaining a search warrant are quite detailed in the context of
the constitution. that reflex reaction to the english practices at the time of the revolution or the english king was allowing general warrants. it was basically a piece of paper that said the kings officials can go anywhere and look for anything. the kings officials would sign the warrant and there were very few limitations. their reaction to that was to say that the government is not allowed in on less they have probable cause or unless the warrant is the subject as to where the police can go and unless it is specific as to what the government is looking for. those are written into the warrant and that was enacted in 1791 and they are very much belote today. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for a cspan. i am with the miami dade county community relations board.
we had a meeting of all the chiefs of police and they are different in the different communities. we had a meeting regarding the police the showing up and busting the door and entering and putting children and on -- down on the ground. they're putting a large weapons to their heads. this has been in several instances. in one instance, they show up, surrounded by a home, they are dressed in black with no identification, no search warrant and nothing is shown. they go through the house and tear everything apart and break the door down, they even had an
individual in custody for 11 months before they searched his home. guest: this sounds like a situation that the constitution would require a warrant. it is hard to know in a specific case. maybe were talking a little bit about the role of search warrants and why have a requirement of going to the judge beforehand. one reason is to make sure that the search is justified and that the search that occurs will be narrow. if the police have to go to a judge before hand and present their case and the judge has to prove that case, there is more of an assurance that the search is legitimate and there is a good reason and the search will be narrow. beyond that, of obtaining a search warrant triggers a bunch of procedural protections. if you are in bohol and the police will execute a search, they have to knock and announce
their presence and wait for the door to be opened. usually, they have to do that but sometimes they can circumvent that. the warrant itself will explain to the homeowner why the search is occurring and assure the homeowner that the police entering are in fact the police. if you are a homeowner and people enter and say they are the police, you may or may not believe that. there is also a requirement that an inventory be left behind of any property that is taken. there are many procedural protections that go along with a warrant requirements. whether they are required in this case we're talking about is what the supreme court is discussing. host: republican line, go ahead. caller: i thought the supreme court and appellate court decided last year that the smaller pot emanating from a car
was not probable cause for the police officer to actually enter the car or pursue other -- try to find out what was in the car. i thought that was decided. number two, in terms of obstruction of justice, i refuse to open my door when my girlfriends ex-boyfriend called and said that i was abusing my girlfriend which did not happen because she was not even there. they busted in my door and arrested me for obstruction of justice. i don't think that is correct. they never paid for the front door. guest: let me focus on the first comment. the supreme court did not conclude that the smell of
marijuana coming from a car means that the car cannot be searched. the smell of marijuana coming from a car generally would be probable cause to believe there is marijuana in the car and that would justify a search of the car without a warrant under a doctrine called the automobile exception which goes back to a 1925 decision. there may have been a lower court decision which cadbury but generally speaking, if there is marijuana in the car and the smell of it is clear to the officers on the outside, they will conduct a search of the car for the marijuana and the constitution allows that. the issue of -- the issue is a state law that gives people who have been subject to search state means of seeking
compensation like a broken door. executing a warrant is in fact a very physical thing. the police sometimes break down a door and often times will rep open things or can damage property or furniture there are very different state laws as to whether people can get compensation for that or not. host: how often are the wrong holmes a searched? guest: it is hard to know. the empirical studies suggest that the evidence described in the warrant was recovered in searches was maybe 65% of the time. it varies based on the jurisdiction and the type of case. there may be 1/3 of the time a warrant is executed and the evidence described in the warrant is not down. there may be some cases where that evidence is not bound by other evidence is found. it is about 2/3 of the time that
evidence the police are looking for is actually foun. orleans, on our independent line. caller: there was a case a long time ago when police officers went to an apartment complex to investigate a shooting. upon going to the apartment complex, they went into a building and looked around and the man had a lot of stereo equipment and wrote down the numbers and they found the equipment was stolen. when the police officers first went to the complex, there were running after someone. they knocked on the door because they smelled marijuana. they got the guys for marijuana but the man was caught for theft.
are they officers getting what they can get when they did not originally get what they went for? guest: under the fourth amendment doctrine called the plainview doctrine, if the government comes across evidence on related to what they are expecting and the incriminating nature is apparent, they can seize the evidence they find and bring charges based on what they have seen. in the kentucky vs. king case, the officers are looking for the crack cocaine dealer and they came across king in his apartment smoking marijuana and charged him with marijuana offenses. it was not the original crime. it was another crime that they stumbled across when they approached the door and smelled marijuana inside. it is not clear from the opinions and the lower courts as to whether the crack cocaine dealer was caught. i don't recall seeing anything in the material in that case as
to whether he was. in the kentucky vs. king case, an investigation into one crime leading to evidence being discovered against another crime and the fourth amendment generally allows the government to bring charges on the second crime if they come across as long as the fourth amendment was not violated in the procedures taken to get the evidence of the second crime. the legal issue here is whether the fourth amendment was violated in getting to the evidence of the second crime host:. miami, fla. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. here in florida, if i just walk to the street and show no probable cause and get stopped and i don't have an idea or driver's license, can they detain me or your estimate?
-- ken bay detainee or arrest me? can i decide not to let them search my automobile and have no problem? the automobile stop will generally be justified under some sort of traffic violation idea. the supreme court has said that at least -- police are enforcing traffic laws, they can stop a car in order to enforce traffic laws, may be ready ticket for the traffic violation. the police absolutely useless to make stocks that are not, in fact, good faith stopped to enforce traffic laws. they are looking for other evidence and the supreme court has said that that is okay. in terms of the police asking for consent, the police will often say that00000 they want to
search your car. people have evidence to hide. if they agree to consent to research, maybe the officer will think that somebody who consents will not have anything to hide. police officers know this so they ask the question knowing purple could well that many people will consent even if they do have evidence. the caller also asked about being stopped and asked questions. the standard for a police stop is reasonable suspicion. it is very difficult as a citizen to know if the police have reasonable suspicion about you. you don't know what they have seen and you don't know what they may have misperceive. the thing to do is to comply with the police orders if an
officer tells you to stop or tells you to stay there. if an officer starts asking a question, you can say that you are sorry and you respect their three but you would rather that answer the question. constitutionally, you are allowed to do that. host: republican line, go ahead. caller: i am in crescent city, california. i have had these illegal search and seizures presented to me. they knock and they can come in your house. i have a doorbell on my house. if i am upstairs, you cannot hear someone knocking on the door. i have had my house completely raided and searched by 15 sheriff's coming through with automatic weapons. they go through my house all over. a judge gives them a search
warrant. do the search warrants have to be signed by a judge so they are legible to read? do they have to have -- does a judge have to sign his name that you can read or can they put little hash marks on the search warrant that absolutely nobody can read it? host: guest: search warrants required the signature of a sitting judge. however, the judges like doctors and other people often can have terrible and riding which is incomprehensible. there can be a scratched line that is in fact a judge's signature. the real issue is whether it is the judge's signature. if the government has turned a search warrant and they don't have a judge's signature or they fake a judge's signature, that is a very serious fourth amendment violation. and the evidence would be suppressed and a civil case will
likely be brought suing the police officers and there would be money to be recovered. if the warrant was actually signed by a judge and it so happens that the judge as bad and writing, the warrant is also valid. there are some circumstances where a judge can authorize the warrant over the fallen. that is allowed under the federal -- and authorize the warrant over the phone. that is allowed. host: houston, texas, democrats line, go ahead. caller: in november, two police officers dressed as appliance repairman came to my door to issue an arrest warrant. i was attempting to comply with the arrest warrant and one of the officers pushed his way in.
he said he had the right to do so. when i contacted my state rep, my state legislator, and my congressman, to this day i have still not got a response as to what my rights are. how do i find out what my rights are and whether or not -- at what point does an arrest warrant become a search warrant? guest: under a case p calledeyton vs. new york, the fourth and requires police to obtain a search -- to obtain a warrant to enforce an arrest. the arrest warrant allows the government to enter the home in order to execute a warrant. if the government in your case did have an arrest warrant, they were in fact allowed to enter the home in order to a effectuate the arrest. the arrest warrant would not allow the government to search the home like rifling through a
closet. yes, the arrest warrant does in fact authorized the police to enter the home. it would not allow the police to enter somebody else's home where they thought you might be. as long as it is the person whose name is on the warrenton is -- and it is there on, they are allowed to enter that home. host: now that this case has been heard, when will it be decided? what are the implications on the outcome? guest: it will probably be decided by the end of june. there is no time line that the justices have to follow. by tradition, they decide all the cases by about the end of june every year. we'll know in a few months what the outcome is. in terms of the implications, it depends on how broadly or how narrowly the supreme court decides nt cas they might say that what they are enacting a broad role that
shows how you address all police death e createdxigent cases. that would become very important. on the other hand, they might say that they will have a determination in this specific case. it may end up being a relatively narrow case. one of the major areas that people may not realize is that it is up to the supreme court when they decide their cases as to how broadly or narrowly the role. in many situations, cases could be big or small host: thank you for explaining this for us. coming up on to mars program, we will talk politics on our first segment will talk with democratic and republican strategist. we will talk with the former we will talk with the former head of