Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The former director of strategy for the White House homeland Security Council Mike Barrett he's also former intelligence officer for the office of the secretary defense Mike good afternoon.
Afternoon -- -- I'm guessing critics would agree that the yes it's clear these these programs this this tapping program is helpful.
But I'm not sure it goes to the point of whether.
Rights are being violated -- the Fourth Amendment I'm just not sure that all critics would say okay well I'm I'm good to go now.
Well I understand that temperature got to keep in mind him and we have executive branch the legislative branch and judicial branch approval of -- So this is not a case of you know some rogue person or even just members of one of the three branches of government stating that.
This is justified based on the on the threat information that they received its all three branches I mean this is a democracy we have the rights ask questions.
I'm glad that we have the right to even have this debate out -- public.
But you know at the end of today the fact the matter is the threat is significant enough.
That a significant number of people and you know who are they are -- -- whether they be appointed or elected have decided that.
This is a legitimate approach to trying to stop the threat.
Of course those who would argue under constitutional grounds might make the argument.
That just by virtue of the fact that they're keeping -- not looking -- it.
Does it mean that they're collecting it might someday be a problem for those of -- to them they've collected them what if at some point.
In at a later date this these items that have been collected or used in violation of our of our rights.
The question is whether they have a right to collect them at all I mean.
Could they put cameras and all of our houses and not turn them on until there's a specific threat made under this logic many might suggest that they could.
Well again I mean it it what you're making is the slippery slope argument which again is a legitimate thing to consider but I think at the end of the day -- we have to say is how significant is the risk on the one hand.
And how significant is the rest of people will violate the trust that they're given by the American public.
As their duly elected officials people in professional sewer rat.
The the NSA and other branches of the government.
So for example we allow police officers to carry weapons right.
I would love delivered a world where police officers don't have to be armed and then we would never have to worry about somebody being shot you know by mistake.
But the reality is there's enough threat out there there's enough crime out there that the police officers need to be not only carrying.
Pistols but also in some cases automatic weapons it's that kind of a thing as society changes as we continue to evolve.
But we're saying is.
It when you look at the threat information you realize that the potential grave serious harm to loss of life.
Outweighs this you know this this notion that we should never had any information stored at all.
All right Mike it's an interesting argument it is a good thing we're having the debate seems right -- proper the president agrees Mike good to see it.
Filter by section