Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Well again and happy Father's Day from Fox News and watching -- For much of the eight years Dick Cheney was a heart -- from the presidency.
He was -- driving force behind increase government surveillance as part of the war on terror.
In the next segment -- asked the former vice president about the change in US policy on Syria and the Obama administration's scandals.
But we want to begin by discussing the revelations about sweeping NSA data collection.
And the renewed debate about whether it's an invasion of our privacy Vice President Cheney.
Welcome back to Fox -- it's going to be backers.
Let's start with -- note -- the 29 year old private contractor who disclosed these programs to the world here is how we justify his actions.
Eventually you realize that.
These things need to be determined by the public not by somebody who -- hired by the government when you are subverting the power of government that that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy.
What do you think of that which now.
I think he's a -- I think he has.
Committed crimes in fact -- -- violating.
Given the position and he was a contractor employ him but he obviously have been granted the top secret clearance.
And I think it's one of the worst occasions in my memory.
Somebody with access classified information to an enormous damage to national security interest of the United States.
We believe believe the skeleton is still in Hong Kong and apparently giving that the Chinese.
Information about alleged US cyber hacking into Chinese computers couple a questions.
If that he was a spy all along for the Chinese -- -- think he's using this information to try to by.
Asylum from the Chinese and how firm should the US government being with the Chinese about turning this -- back to.
Well I'm deeply suspicious obviously because it went trying to that's not a place where -- inordinate ordinarily wanna go connection freedom liberty and so forth.
To it raises questions whether or not he had that kind of connection.
Before he did this the other concern I have is whether or not he had help from inside the agency that is to say.
Was there somebody else in SA NSA who had access to a lot of this stuff and passed it.
That's presumably want things and look at that -- investigation.
That I AM.
I am very very worried that he still has an additional information as -- released yet.
That the Chinese would welcome the opportunity.
And probably will include.
Provide immunity for him more sanctuary forum if you only exchange for one presumably knows -- doesn't -- So it it's going to be a continuing problem I don't think this is just a one off disclosure.
I think there's a real danger here that -- go beyond that -- I I have trouble believing that somebody in his position.
As contract employed had access to the kind of things he's talking about -- He was acting -- I don't know.
Now what about the US Chinese relationship we saw President Obama on meet with president she last weekend -- out in Palm Springs supposedly trying to -- Rebuild the relationship how much.
Should we put that relationship on the line to demand that they turn.
-- back to us.
Well I think.
I think you need to be very aggressive about it I'm not sure it'll do any good.
It depends obviously on whether or not Chinese believe he still has value from an intelligence standpoint.
I've got to believe they'll work that angle first before they decide whether to -- Since the leaks there has been a lot of criticism of the NSA program from both the lot right on the left I wanna focus on conservatives though.
People like senator Rand Paul -- say.
Fine -- the government target terrorists but leave law abiding Americans alone take a look.
This is what we objected to.
What our founding fathers partly fought the revolution over.
Is they did not want generalize Warren street you go from house to house was soldiers looking for things or now from computer to computer to phone to phone.
Without specifying who -- -- targeting.
Question isn't -- a problem.
I believe he has column.
Two thirds of the congress today.
Chris wasn't here on 9/11 for that period immediately after when we got into this program and the recently got into it was because we've been.
And -- -- worst attack on Pearl Harbor nineteen guys armed with box cutters and airline tickets.
The worry is that the next attack in the -- expected -- -- expected and I expect today sooner or later -- there's going to be another attack.
And they'll have deadly weapons than ever before that we've got to consider the possibility of a nuclear device or biological agent.
Home we made a decision based on 9/11 that we no longer had a law enforcement parliament where war.
And congress in fact -- -- the president to use military force to deal with the crisis and that -- over into the the category being able to use all of your military assets your intelligence assets and so forth in order to protect the country against another attack.
And when you consider the possibility of somebody smuggling something like a nuclear device into the United States.
It becomes a very very important to gather intelligence on your enemies and stop that attack before every -- Let me ask you the specific question that front Rand Paul and a lot of other people on both the right laughter who are raising their -- fine.
If you find the bad guys you've ever reason to suspect them go after -- numbers go after their emails but why do you have to vacuum up information.
Law abiding American in the country -- First what information.
And the answer -- phone numbers.
And who contacted through what we don't have names associated -- -- it's a big bag of numbers that have been collected.
And Eagles president for well I don't believe it is in fact that's how private information -- Supreme Court those are business records of the telephone company.
You don't go end of that.
Box of numbers if you went over to look for connections unless you.
-- up someplace suspicious number captured Khaled Sheikh Mohamed Karachi or bin Laden and and about a -- in Pakistan and you look at their cellphones a look at their Rolodex and effect and see what numbers there.
Had connections back into the United States and by preserving that database you're able to come back and -- if they've been talking was somebody inside.
As everybody's been associated programs that if we have had this before nine elevenths when there were two terrorist in San Diego two hijackers.
And been able to use that program that capability against that target we might well have been able to prevent nine elevenths so we're not and this.
The allegation is out there that somehow we've gotten all this personal information on -- Fannie or Chris Wallace or whoever might be.
And we're poring through it not true that's not the way it works.
It's been explained by Mike Hayden who -- -- -- I Keith Alexander is superb guys both of them who's now running the program.
That we have collected a lot of numbers but they -- business records of the phone companies.
They have been determined by the Supreme Court not to be private individual records the way.
There oftentimes to.
-- critics note but let's assume that's right now the question is being asked why does all of this have to be capped.
So secret that the terrorists clearly assume we're trying to intercept their phone calls and intercept their emails so it.
Why not let the American public know the the outlines the general problem obviously not sources -- -- is and how you -- win.
And the algorithms and all that but the blueprint the general out on a program so.
We as Americans can debate it.
I have problems.
With with respect -- that concern I understand people's concern about it.
But and intelligence program that does reveal sources and methods which in fact this what you're talking about.
Is significantly less effective because you're not just revealing it to the American people -- really limit your targets to your adversaries to the enemy.
There are reasons for secrecy in the conduct of intelligence operations and we set this program up.
Back and the weeks after of one.
We briefed certain members of congress chairman ranking member of the Intelligence Committees that we did at my office in the west wind Mike -- command George Tenet I was there.
And we've -- -- lay out of what we were doing but we were running from.
Eventually we did it for the elected leadership that got both parties both houses.
So we had senior officials in the congress and eventually obviously applies to -- who -- read into the program knew what we Rhode Island and had an effect signed off I want to ask.
A collective group the big nine and spring of 04.
And briefing him -- -- briefed him.
And said do you think we ought to continue the program that's an absolutely yes and -- that you think will come back to the congress and get additional legislative authorization they should absolutely not that leak.
Those -- the senior leaders in congress at the time now.
So what right do you think American the American people -- to know.
What government is still well they get them.
She's -- to get to vote for senior officials like the president United States or like this senior officials and congress and you have to have some trust in them.
You don't go out when he -- and intelligence operation trying to collect data and in effect telling me what you're doing.
It is just that it would be a dumb idea.
It makes the program significantly less effective and reveals to -- our adversaries crucial information that they shouldn't have.
All right well let me ask about that because top US intelligence.
Officials have -- more information.
To try to explain and defend these programs that relate that Saturday let's put some of that up on the screen.
They say -- -- from these programs help break up terror plots in the US and twenty other countries last year they say.
Fewer than 300 phone numbers were checked against the huge database and that all the data.
Is destroyed every five years.
Given the -- given -- information do you think that provides useful information to our enemies.
-- I think it does amendment we've now laid out -- they have no choice and I don't -- with what they're now putting out.
They're forced to put it out because.
An individual in this case snowed took it upon himself to decide the United States no longer needed to maintain -- secret.
You cannot -- you can't operate to replicate it just doesn't function I mean if you think about what we're able to -- World War II we're reading now Alter.
Communication vital success of that venture.
Could it announces to the world.
Could have had this kind of debate but obviously it would have destroyed the ability to -- you're telling.
Your adversary about your sources and methods and how -- were reading their mail in the same thing is true here.
What's different now is the threat threat now isn't just overseas -- just before empower.
The threat now is terrorist coming back into the United States using deadlier weapons -- ever before to launch an attack.
We have to know what they're doing we need to know who they're in contact with here in the United States and with this program allows us to do and the reason -- was set up for the way it's been operated.
Was when we went to Karachi and captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we could -- -- Rolodex and see who he was talking to inside the United States.
When he had the two guys and San Diego who were feature hijackers on 9/11.
They were in contact overseas with their leadership overseas as well as some of the rest of the organization here in the states.
If we've been able to read their mail and intercept those communications.
And pick up from the calls overseas in the numbers here that they reason in the United States we would then probably been able to thwart that attack.
Back when he was running for president in 2008 Barack Obama talked about what he called false choice between liberty and security.
And when this program was revealed last week he said well I scrubbed a lot of what I inherited.
From you let's -- IA.
Where they helping skepticism bouts these programs.
My team evaluated them we -- them early we actually expanded some of the oversight.
Increase some of the safeguards.
How much as President Obama scrubbed.
What you guys gave.
I can't I don't know I mean obviously have not been in the loop on classified information to -- -- the White House.
-- one of the keys for me Chris is I know.
He's one of the finest there's a national security at -- the National Security Agency now in charge of the program I know Mike -- very well he was his predecessor.
-- later became CIA director I worked with Mike Hayden when we set this program up.
He came to me and then he and George -- and -- said -- -- That there were additional things we could gather if we had a more authority.
And I took him to the president and he signed off on with some very strict limitations and restrictions on what we could do.
These men are respond.
Officers as you're gonna find any place in the states military and I've met a lot of them over the years.
I trust these guys implicitly with with my life so so and made a look what I make of what they're saying is.
They are to be believe they're good honest Americans are patriotic.
But they also care very much about their responsibility to safeguard civil liberties -- what I'm asking you what do you make them out of the president.
Well I had to scrub up with these guys left.
-- I don't pay a lot of attention frankly to what Barack Obama assess it on a lot of its.
In other areas for example IRS bad guys and not credible.
Com I'm obviously not a fan -- the incumbent president I don't know what he did.
That program obviously from what's now been released is still in operation and it's a good.
That it's an operation I think it has in fact saved lives and kept there.
Kept us free from other attacks.
-- last question in this area.
Some critics say there's a disconnect between the president defending this vast surveillance as he has since it was revealed.
And his recent remarks in which he seemed to indicate that the war on terror is winding down -- Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue but this war.
Like all -- Stand.
A couple of questions first of -- what do you think of the president suggesting.
Where we are now in the war on terror and as he put it -- -- cross roads and doesn't make it harder to justify this now surveillance.
If the war on terror is -- Well first of all is wrong it's not want them if you look at that -- part of the world now that's available to us.
Safe harbor sanctuary for terrorists planned and trained -- attacks against the United States it now runs all across North Africa.
All those places that the for example the Muslim Brotherhood come to power.
So threats bigger than ever -- -- other problem that is the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
And weapons of mass destruction today were all concerned about Syria -- -- what the problem would be if the North Korean built nuclear reactor.
We're still in Syria and had been destroyed by the Israeli six years ago we have a huge mess on our hands with problem from the standpoint of terrorist.
But laden may be dead but we've got al-Qaeda and a lot of al-Qaeda wannabes al-Qaeda affiliates out there operating -- -- is proof positive that al-Qaeda is operating.
In this case in Libya so he's just dead wrong on -- status as -- threat.
In terms of credibility I don't think he has credit them and one of the biggest problems we have is we've got an important point where.
The present -- United States ought to be able to stand -- and this is a righteous program it's a good program -- save American lives and I support it.
And the problem is that guys failed to be forthright and honest and credible and things like -- Gaza in the IRS so he's got no credibility.
Filter by section