Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Our senior judicial analyst judge Andrew Napolitano.
And -- from the from DC.
Elizabeth going -- Co director of liberty and national security program at the Brennan center for justice which describes itself as a nonpartisan law and policy institute thank you both can see you.
Thank you Elizabeth let's start with you what your take on here.
Well I think that this is a very shocking story in a lot of ways I think what we're seeing it is.
An application of a lot where the life itself is made public but the actual application of the lot is.
It looks very different frankly from what the statute looks like on its face.
And it isn't some real -- -- into the privacy of law abiding Americans so I think that's why people are sad I think there's a good reason for.
Judge how would you describe this man.
I would describe this man as an American hero -- a person willingness to risk life limb and and liberty.
In order to exposed to the American people one of the most extraordinary violations.
Of the American principles value judgments and the constitution itself.
And now and all of our history.
A person so familiar.
With the intelligence community as you heard from the excerpts that you just played he's aware of the personal danger to himself he knows of the likelihood of prosecution.
But he also understands.
That the government listening to half the country is not what was bargained for when statutes -- -- in in the days and weeks after 9/11.
Elizabeth as -- been a national debate is sufficient national debate over this matter.
Absolutely not because they haven't known that this is in fact the government's interpretation.
These statutes and we haven't known that it's the court's interpretation either because it's a secret court.
It rules and secret -- only has one party in front of that most of the time that's the government.
So I mean the president said it the other day we need to have a public debate about potential trade offs between our liberty.
And our security and -- -- a national debate normally comes before the government does something not after it's been doing it for years correct I mean that that's what's so upsetting about this.
Everybody understood -- everybody that follows this understood that defies the -- are written in response to the abuses in the Nixon administration created the secret court.
But it was authorized to give search warrants to listen to the conversations or.
-- -- of the the communications of foreign agents in the United States somehow from that era in 1979 to our post 9/11 era.
That went all the way from foreign agents to.
Anybody communicating with a -- error.
And that went to everybody with a telephone so if anybody calls a -- -- we would know so now we get every Verizon customer 113.
Million of them.
Participating in a billion phone calls today are potential suspects in the minds of the intelligence community of the United States.
Because they might be speaking to someone overseas.
They're looking for a needle in the haystack and they have that this.
And that doesn't trouble them well guess what the Fourth Amendment was written.
To prevent this very behavior the concept of -- fishing expedition or dragnet that's why the Fourth Amendment requires specific.
Articulate -- suspicion.
About a specific person before search warrant can be given not a search -- so they asked that it covers more than half the country what about all of these leaders who have implemented this and are now standing up defending this what what's your take on them as a group and as individuals they are unworthy of their jobs as as guardians of our liberty under the constitution who is.
Who -- ever authorize this whether the president authorized -- whether the attorney general authorize that -- -- they judge who was appointed by President Reagan.
And who signed this search warrant or threat that anybody who thinks.
That it is consistent with the constitution.
Four spies in the United States of America working for the federal government to spy on more than half the country does not understand the constitution does not accept our values does not understand our history and -- not be in office so what -- we do about them.
We raise -- like we are raising now we raise hell like we are raising now we encourage members of congress to expose this and find out how this happened.
Did admiral clapper -- lie when he was asked by senator Wyden have -- are you surveilling.
Tens of millions of Americans and gathering information about them answer.
-- -- Two months ago.
Not six years ago two months ago that question that answer under oath I don't know clapper is the Director of National Intelligence he runs the NSA.
Elizabeth do you agree.
Well I don't question that the people who are implementing this program and who approved this program.
Believes that they were acting in the best interests of the United States and that they are in fact it's acting to further our national security the problem with -- Is that -- These powers are so abroad especially the way they're being interpreted and -- it.
That they open the door to tremendous potential for abuse and so I'm not comforted when I hear the president say I trust everyone.
Who's who who's running this program.
Because you know I don't think you know is every every single person who is sitting at a computer but he.
Those are pissing people will be running this program in four years and eight years and fifteen years.
Visibility -- upon a time of thank -- few weeks ago we sit here you know maybe need to have an extra bit in the bedroom there for the government -- to just sleep there and watch everything we -- turns -- they don't need a bit.
They're more like drone pilots than anything else they can just sit somewhere else way away and watch everything we did.
There it's possible for them to know when I'm using my microwave oven isn't it.
They're known in General Petraeus -- ran the CIA gave a speech that he thought was secret and somebody company that made it public.
In which he said that new microwaves -- new dishwashers have computer chips in -- that the CIA can access so they know when you're using your microwave your dishwasher and and if they put that knowledge into an algorithm that a computer program that for predicts behavior.
They can project when you're going to go in the kitchen and do we really want a government that can do that there -- we already have one that can do that -- these chances other actually doing that already.
They do know every phone call you've made to what number and at what time of day every one of them.
-- want the access to that they can get it all they have to go through court to do that open.
They already have the information.
Every single bit of it.
Thank you judge who has -- meantime another.
Filter by section