Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Welcome to a Monday yes Monday edition of special report on line I'm Brett -- thanks for joining us.
It is Monday mark from Memphis writes in her ray sounds like someone was feeling guilty about ditching -- last Wednesday.
Know mark I'm feeling guilty about -- -- -- this Wednesday.
We're gonna do it Monday instead of Wednesday.
These events pop up we have our panel we added that lovely and talented Shannon Bream.
I'm happy to be your player let's just all right -- warmly welcome Charles Charles Krauthammer.
We obviously spent a lot of time talking about the NSA.
Situation and Shannon you've been looking at defiance of course the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance.
They have a track record passing these.
Once they do we looked at the calculation at that point 0003%.
Of the time the government doesn't succeed in its request.
And he cited some of the numbers on the panel tonight it's 33000 plus requests since the -- -- in existence.
At about eleven times people have been turned out it would be unique things about -- -- that people can go and it's the government that's putting together these requests unopposed going to court.
If there's some defects with the request they've put in the judges will tell them what's wrong -- say if you fix accident bring it back -- prove it.
That of course is gonna help you with the approval process and you're getting specific guidance on how to -- -- see it the thumbs up right.
But there's no.
I guess arguing from the other -- line and there's no way in there saying.
Now this is a bad idea yeah.
Yes it's totally in the hands of the -- eleven judges number of these judges and their spread in different jurisdictions across the country they're selected by the Chief Justice of the United States so that's currently.
Chief Justice John Roberts the Supreme Court.
And they're all federal district court judge so these are people who've gone through senate confirmation their chosen because they have some specific link -- expertise in this area.
So they are supposed to be the gatekeeper so they're the ones who are asking the devil's advocate questions when the government comes -- yeah.
Paul in Columbus Indiana says a judge also -- snooping on rose.
-- -- I wouldn't put that went on the judge.
I'd put that on the information he was given that we know from what the attorney general has said in his own defense.
In defending himself against.
Perjury to congress.
He said I don't know I I I spoke the truth to conversely I never heard of I've never been in the files and prosecution.
Of a member of the press because when I went to the judge.
And presented the the affidavit.
I swore that he was a criminal co conspirator but I really.
Never intended that because I wasn't ever going to prosecute.
So basically he deliberately misled a judge and we we spoke about this last week.
He then added to make you know you know cherry on top of the cake he said that he's a flight risk.
Now if you would never have the intention.
Of a prosecuting somebody what does it matter.
How completely irrelevant is -- that he's a flight risk so clearly that was -- in as a way to mislead a judge into thinking of these.
Could be a prosecution.
So if you're getting an attorney general.
Who misleads the judge I would say the judge he's the one who's leniency if I say you've got misconduct.
By the Justice Department and that ought to be.
That ought to be looked at that ought to be.
And you know if necessary prosecuted.
Am Tony B wants as we shouldn't assume quote no abuses have taken place yet.
That's -- she says if if you think about it one of the abuses is just.
Period I mean the fact that he's out telling about the process.
The way he describes it is different than obviously the government describes the program.
And Intelligence Committees -- program.
But I mean if he can do it there arts tends.
Supposedly more than 30000.
Contractors with the NSA.
Who have similar access ability.
Correct if there is an -- Snowden is their.
Are there others.
Well is again it's not a new program and we have not had this leak -- -- before now I I will point out that there has been a great deal of knowledge and discussion.
About how the government has been pursuing surveillance.
Under the authority under the -- of the Patriot Act.
And so we have a very large Homeland Security establishment built up a lot of it evident here around Washington these days.
And sometimes some of that can't seem especially in terms of the expense attached to -- to me.
Sort of overdone.
But it also includes the capacity given the advances in technology.
Not only to look at.
Patterns in the phone calls and the like but to look at everything from.
Emails the twitters to chat rooms that I could go on blogs and arrest.
And so I -- at the end of this show he says that can be done I don't I wanted to actually if you allow me -- ask the question -- I believe the FBI.
Is in charge of making the case to the judges.
They're the ones there was an FBI agent who's -- the affidavit that said that Rosen was allegedly engaged -- in a better a leader or co conspirator.
He is the one who identified.
Rosen asked the potential flight risk.
So he puts forth the sworn affidavit and then he goes to the judge with the guidance of the DOJ to say hey we have a -- FBI agent's affidavit.
Were essentially signing off -- -- that's were told it was discussed with the attorney general the highest levels but it was based upon that affidavit of the agent.
But if -- the attorney general in the affidavit is.
Brought to your attention and the the DOJ has said he actually discussed -- -- right distance.
So he has essentially is affirming it.
And it's misleading if.
Not an outright lie.
-- and Alabama says the NSA is working overtime tonight with a special Internet -- Very Smart plan very good -- see -- and the other studio Catherine Herridge.
A couple of reports.
And the big dark star as we called -- in the tees.
In Utah were all of this state is what I found -- thing is when general Alexander.
Answered or didn't answer your question that AEI event.
Saying that the data is not being held of Americans in that facility and if we are to believe Snowden and what we've heard of this program.
That's not true.
Well a couple of important pieces I think have fallen into place with these leaks what we know now is that there's really a two tier system.
For how they analyze this information the first.
Are these call record logs they made -- identify you by name but when you analyze them they're actually far more intrusive.
Then looking at the contents of these calls because it maps your pattern of behavior also maps your social network if you get flagged for some reason.
Because of these patterns are because of let's say.
A terrorist tip from overseas.
The -- get permission from.
The national security court -- the court to drill down into the contents and they have to have a place to hold the contents.
Phone calls emails.
Video and that takes a lot of storage than metadata -- the phone -- themselves to not take a lot of storage.
But the rest of it does so it seems clear to us based on our reporting now that the U -- data center is like a giant thumb drive where all of this information.
-- -- -- Yeah top area.
They couldn't hear you here.
Some knocking -- Charles I'm not gonna ask Charles to comment on what you said.
But I guess the question is.
-- For people who are skeptical about the government anyway.
And especially in this environment we're in.
It seems like all of this data.
Would be a lot to trust your government to half and it opens up all of these questions that are -- libertarians have but others have.
Why didn't they get the Boston bombing suspects when Russia said hey look at this guy.
Why didn't they get Fort Hood shooter.
When he was communicating with.
You know why doesn't work all the time.
-- these -- Rams who really can only operate if you have the trust of the American people.
And this is not an environment of trust and if you lay out the data from our reporting.
What you see very clearly is that the Director of National Intelligence James clapper when he testified.
On the hill earlier this year.
Was not direct in his question about whether they collect on Americans.
They clearly -- I think another -- yet and neither was general Alexander and if you don't mind me saying this in the most respectful manner possible.
They're plenty of documented cases where the system.
Has been abused we interviewed three whistle blowers who say that their lives were essentially destroyed when the system.
Was turned on them that's Tom Drake.
-- -- -- And bill -- -- And it eventually went to a misdemeanor so with all due respect there's several cases which show the abuse of the system.
And the problem here is that you are collecting in kind of they would all call a pre crime.
Mentality you're collecting everything just in case one day you need to go back.
And that's where the discussion has to be because.
You know on 9/11.
One of bin Laden's primary goals was to fundamentally.
Change the way Americans live and how the society operates.
And I think with the revelations in the last week you could really ask yourself whether they have successfully met that goal now with these programs.
It's been very interest in let's take a listen to Rand Paul from FOX News Sunday.
And something he said about about the program.
We're not talking about going.
After a terrorist I'm all for that.
Get a warrant go after eight terrorist story murderer or a rapists but don't troll through -- -- -- -- -- phone records every day.
That is unconstitutional.
It invades our privacy.
If we knew that terrorist wise.
We have a lot easier time.
Going to be a big peaceful world we don't know who's a terrorist.
We had no idea of the subway bomber apparently this is somebody who was apprehended him before he attacked in New York City.
And we would have had images like the Boston -- -- dead people injured people.
Relatives -- wailing and crying and that was averted by a program the problem is -- people don't walk around with a sign saying on the terrorist.
And sifting through it is very hard we see that airports.
And we -- here look.
The program is designed to look through by algorithms.
Use to massive data.
We heard snow and say I have the authority to go -- wiretap.
The democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
And the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee are liars advises the administration that's not true.
He doesn't have the authority if he has the power then we ought to have a discussion.
Over what safeguards -- there be should there be.
Are there to prevent a low level employees apparently he was.
From actually doing unlawful stuff and that's a useful debate I'm not saying what we have now is perfect.
But the idea that somehow the law allows all this is simply false.
Less than -- and they have to go the rest of the series this week.
Looks into a number of different elements of this.
Well it does it looks into the impact of data mining on the election it looks into how.
Even the even small children in this country are developing what they call it digital footprint this is a digital picture.
Of who they are by the time they're eighteen years old.
Because of the information out there whether it's FaceBook or even these sort of scholastic sites that they go to jail and -- this digital picture of -- was not necessarily.
A true reflection.
Both of who you are and if I could just if I could just add just a couple points to what Charles said.
You know Dianne Feinstein.
And chairman Mike Rogers who I have great respect for.
I mean they have a -- -- here because they're the ones were supposed to be overseeing these programs so you bet they're gonna get up and say we're doing adequate oversight.
I cannot imagine that they would get a concede that they're not doing adequate oversight.
Because what we found out in the fall and in sprain is that there was never adequate oversight of the drone program.
Which they were supposed to be overseeing so I would just argue that we don't have a strong track record when you look at the oversight of these secret program.
It's Catherine thank you very -- points.
We'll see you tomorrow -- Donna from Wisconsin writes in the question isn't whether the Patriot Act is needed according to Jim sensenbrenner.
Where is being collected today is way beyond the intent of the act he should know he wrote it.
Shannon the president said something.
Friday that was kind of inching and and some back and forth over the weekend losses.
Every member of congress has been briefed on this program.
Would respect all these programs.
The relevant Intelligence Committees.
Are fully briefed on this program we were never told that we were able to find out the information it's been revealed this week so I think it's a fiction.
It's a fiction that everybody in congress knows the chair and ranking member of the intelligence committee -- make clear that every member was advised of this and have the opportunity for briefings.
Saw him when he says every member was brief states doesn't seem like that was true it.
You know it's just interesting to see the the president.
The Director of National Intelligence the head of the NSA.
Say things that days later.
It seems are not accurate -- and we talked to some folks on the Sunday show yesterday.
Folks from both sides of the -- who really raised questions about that whether everybody in congress had access or knew the information was there.
Up for example we talked to Bobby Scott he's a Democrat congressman out of Virginia and he questioned us and I said.
And yet we know now you're going to have a briefing on Tuesday what kind of person Steve happening a he'd sounded like he would play of questions because even though he sits on the Judiciary Committee.
He could -- call any kind of it.
You know briefing that would have exposed just how broad this particular program wise so he seems like as a Democrat he had plenty of questions we heard -- from Republicans as well who said.
You know we were not completely attended this level this breath of a program -- there -- others on the hill who are saying.
We told people we told members this information was available to them in classified briefings many of them didn't wanna come because they couldn't bring staff they said was impossible -- over all the documents and they -- have someone there.
Helping them take notes and -- through this information so their lazy if -- and show up and this information was available so there's obviously.
A conflict in the two versions of the story we're getting.
Couple of people reading and -- fort Walton beach Florida and -- yeah.
Saying fox control room why are my comments getting filtered.
Maybe not that -- Now they're trying to put -- -- its best and there's -- to control room active.
That what exactly Utah which continued stuff -- -- that big building -- And it earlier this year earlier this term there were a group of journalists and lawyers who went to the Supreme Court.
And had filed a lawsuit against the and I clapper.
And we're challenging -- -- their -- there are portions of the Patriot Act that were causing them trouble because.
The portions that were aimed at intercepting international and foreign conversations and communications.
They said it.
Were getting caught up in that innocently and it's costing us a lot of money to have to do secure.
We're having to send people to London to have conversations they could have on the phone or by.
Because the Patriot Act.
Will they couldn't prove that it actually happened because how would day how would they now.
And essentially the -- board said he did just happen they said you have no standing to sue because he -- he suffered an injury which is tough to -- when you don't know you're being tracked it.
In our there's so many people writing and saying they are so disappointed right now I know I'm so disappointed but my -- -- Charles Charles.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- That the audience doesn't want Charles this -- what he said but he what do you think it was true.
Now -- usage you agree with me I'm completely -- days.
And I ran into I now let me guess that I thought here's -- -- retiring tonight.
We want to hear your parents are important to us don't do that don't watch them -- -- -- -- you don't qualify I'm sure you'll be left well compensated.
But let me just say I think -- given this comment about.
That that you heard from Rand Paul you know people going door to door that was not the intent.
You have to have a suspect -- you have to know who you're looking for what you're looking for as you pursue this investigation.
This to me is really anachronistic given what has happened within our capacity in terms.
The whole notion of data mining is looking for -- It's not the case that anybody is listening in on the phone conversation but -- we know -- correct.
Underneath the post again if you color within the lions yes the program is -- error and know why there is little -- anybody's salary outside the lines except for Snowden right.
But -- Because as you pointed out there not tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of these security consultant he's the only one who's done this.
OK but I might point to you is the capacity to -- to look for data patterns.
Didn't exist previously.
And it now exist and I think it would be negligent on the part of government trying to protect us from terrorism.
Pursuing the idea of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they -- -- that you know we're not gonna protect your life.
American citizen C.
To this point I think is where there is a real push back because you know and Feingold speech on the senate floor he -- And I forgot which justice who writes opinions Supreme Court who says one day.
There may be this this technology.
Where you can see what people are communicate like it was a fourth box to email and Twitter and everything else he said we have to protect.
And you know I think there is just concern out there that.
You have to put trust in a government that people are not ready to trust.
To know that there coloring within the lines that's the best analogy I have -- I have six children three -- Is that fair chart.
-- -- -- And now they wanted -- me I have to completely reconsider my position.
But let me make the libertarian side of this that I approve.
Number one I'm glad it came out and I think Obama should have spoken about this.
And steady -- he hides everything and all of a sudden.
It comes out because of somebody who -- and unlawfully.
We ought to have a debate because the best protection in the -- -- ratifies accord.
It's not a Judiciary Committee gates to push back in debate among the American people which is what we're having now which is a good thing.
I completely respect the libertarian position.
And what I would argue is what.
There are two issues number one is it within the constitution.
And our argue undoubtedly what is happening now.
He is so that's a matter of law I think it's a rather easy argument to make this second loose cannon.
And the answer is yes.
And therefore the debate we ought to be having games.
Safeguards although I mean you can do it in a million ways you would look at hiring an NSA people you -- look at how they are checked.
-- -- look at electronic means of preventing -- known.
Wimbledon -- listening in on your.
Phone calls you also can have checks in the congress you can have an outside do board he could do all kinds of things and I'm all in favor of that.
And that's why I think -- debate is good.
But in principle with the world out there would make your hair stand on end if we heard all the stuff that the CIA director and -- -- hearing about.
In the world out there where you can get information in patterns and you could cause to get the information of non US nationals outside the US.
If we don't -- do it we are being derelict and neglect in the security America.
Compete and there will be you know people on the job -- community that say -- this will have affected them by the way that's the -- back here it's been a little darker.
-- Starship Enterprise.
More controls from Utah yeah in this -- let me well obviously I agree there should be a debate.
But I think it should be framed differently in the way Charles presented I think it's literally -- debate between.
Civil liberties and security.
And in the United States we've always allowed certain protections for I think that's exactly as before with the police department for example the FBI.
Subpoenas and all the rest and that -- invasions of our our our rights if you world com into your home say they're looking for something.
And search you your family disrupt your life.
In this current environment there is now I think -- need for repositioning.
The balance between liberty and security.
And there are people who will come at you with -- simple statement anybody who gives up security for liberty is a fool us by I I remember post 9/11 you being on this panel right and expressing concerns about John ashcroft's.
Absolute Justice Department and what was happen.
Absolutely and being shot there was only one of the two people who were willing to -- member Barbara Lee got more trouble for voting against the Patriot Act at that time.
And Russ Feingold was right in the senate right so what I'm saying is at that juncture that -- the time to make the case now we can't we are more than ten years later.
And people are figuring out I gotta say I think people come into this party a little late.
Oh boy you know the administration Shannon is now making the case that these terrorist threats are so significant that we need all of this day that we need this.
This protection from all of these terrorist threats that is not the case that they -- -- for the Democratic Convention.
If you remember right.
Leading up to Ben Ghazi was we have defeated al-Qaeda they are on the wrong they are decimated.
And this threat is not the same and to listen to how significant the threat is now.
That it's kind of an opposite case well.
And this administration is now going to be butting heads with the group they've recently starting -- butting heads with a lot which -- the ACLU I talked to the director of the national security program today.
They filed a motion with the -- the court saying we want -- cough up all of this information has to do with these broad sweeps like we saw with the phone records.
And I talk -- -- and you know what did I do you think you're gonna get it and we there's no appeals court from the -- -- court essentially the way that it's set up.
And -- -- what we expect them to take this seriously because the public can't truly have a debate about what's happening if they don't know what happens in these courts.
And about the opinions that have been issued what these judges have decided.
So they file that today they're very hopeful that they're gonna get some more information out to the public but they say essentially.
You know there's talk about -- three branches -- each other but nobody can keep tabs on this court but the court itself and they think it's time for a little sunshine and.
And then Michigan writes trust can only be earned.
Guest rights crowd -- police analogy is flawed those made earlier.
To make it applicable here the police would be shooting everyone and asserting that some of them are or could and could be in the future criminals well.
Thought I would cut down on crime.
How -- and my party reflect I mean that yeah.
Can I follow up on your point about the president's -- it is and only that he did this in the lead up.
To the election.
He gave his speech three weeks ago -- great foreign policy speech.
On drones the essence of which the theme of which is the tide of war is receding.
He not only wants to amend the authorization for the use of force -- post 9/11 law that allows the war on terror.
He wants to repeal it CME is speaking of red -- the only time we ever speaks about this because he rarely does that's -- -- for two big speech.
And he's essentially saying the war is over it's winding down and that the same time he has a gigantic program.
To scoop up information.
Which is only out there on the assumption that the war on -- is out there and if you knew -- all the stuff that was happening here and it would be standing on it.
That's a complete contradiction.
And the president is -- one who was at fault at least in the bush years he went out there every week.
And talked about the war on Terry took a lot of hits on this he made a lot of mistakes but he was a wanna set for the country.
This is an issue this is a problem and he put it out there I think if you had to put American people to sleep with the myth that the war on -- is over then you can.
-- -- whether some things like animals and oranges Charles that we we have an -- war in Afghanistan that's one and we have a war in Iraq.
That's over pretty much but again we have a large investment in terms of Iraqis that bad but I say we have in fact.
Decimated al-Qaeda as it stood when he attacked us on nine elevenths and I understand that convenient oh you know Obama -- the war on terror is over he didn't think it was over so why do we have the data mining -- because we have to protect that says no let's say that the threat note is no longer in existence.
Questions from people like this aren't you -- I have Brothers.
In the speech was the 9/11 emergency is either over or over done.
And everything he argued that speech was we have to return to pre 9/11 there's as a matter of -- -- and.
Correct we have to re engage our standing -- -- -- now because you cannot have a continual ongoing war standing and think that's you -- normal.
I don't I think that would get -- our total civil liberties positions but also put it paramilitary.
But if that I'm just listening to him you know up on the hill the administration.
Talking about serious threats and -- you -- it -- right that it it'll turn your hair grow if revenue.
What they read every day correct that is not something the president talks about.
That is not something the threat from radical Islam that this president talks about when deals with but now because this leak happened.
He is talking about it because he's defending a program that he has to defend.
Well what he has said in defense is not that I know I -- that perhaps -- -- right well I eat if you like I -- -- were talking about it is that it.
He didn't come out and start talking about.
The range of threats to the US.
What he said was that his job is as president United States to keep us safe.
That he could not go into details about it but he said this was an important instrument for our safety right.
It's not just important -- the most intrusive.
The most scary and threading which is why it that the folks who are writing in.
And who are extremely upset with me I think have a lot on their site this is a very serious issue.
And we have to find a way to control it but you can't argue on the one end of the most intrusive.
And the most of the usable program.
If you've ever heard of it because it is abuse of -- that's for sure.
On the one hand in the war on terror is either over a winding down on the other.
That is a contradiction and that's the president speaking -- have decided this -- the American.
People people when he wants to shut Guantanamo.
And then on the other side of his mouth when he wants to justify these huge dragnet.
Well I think that the congress happened -- closing on time.
So far but this is okay well that's important point you only wanted closure if that threat is essentially over our -- to deal with.
I -- pretty unrelated note out Thursday morning more opinions from the stream court we're awaiting 23.
Including same sex marriage and from the national and -- getting simple enough.
Ask anybody right facts you are present to you last you know and then they're -- and stretched out we'll get played every case is waiting on and only ten mile just get them into the -- -- -- -- -- visualize -- They do only -- -- that's I'm wearing I'm running shoes that day.
Just honest I'm not Supreme Court.
I think they're in trouble on these cases because they are stepping in the midst of a culture world.
I think and so then we you know we told you guys and procedurally and technically they may not get the merits -- gay marriage cases it's possible that.
People get a decision -- way to get and I believe it landed on this Alex says Shannon is the best looking -- -- all -- you.
We have -- yes you're very.
OK thanks everybody for a special Monday edition special report on line no Wednesday.
But Monday still -- special report outlined.
We'll see you next week Santorum with a -- round.
Filter by section