tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News December 21, 2013 11:00am-11:31am PST
this week on "the journal editorial report," a federal judge slams the nsa surveillance program. an obama appointed panel calls for major changes. how will the white house respond? will america's safety suffer? plus, pope francis is "time" magazine's man the year making some waves for his economic views. why some conservatives aer s ar happy. an op-ed in our very own paper exposes a nasty rift in the democratic party. it urn it turns out republican the only ones divided. welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. a federal judge ruled this week
that the national surveillance agency likely violates the constitution. just days before the white house appointed panel released its own critique of the nsa and its activities and made some potentially dangerous recommendations for reining it in. joining the panel this week, "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editor dan hettinger. for your sins, read this opinion and the nsa report. tell us first about the opinion. how powerful is it, as a legal document, taking on the constitutionality of this program? >> well, it's not very compelling, paul. since the supreme court decision, meta data, phone records, information, has not
been under the amendment. if you entrust your data to a third party like a phone company or a credit card company, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. >> but why did leon then say that precedent -- because he's a lower court judge, why did he say that supreme court precedent doesn't apply right now? >> he said technology has changed so much that the case no longer pertains. smith versus maryland wasn't about how or how much meta data the government collects. whether it's the local police or the nsa. it's simply the fact that your meta data is not yours. it belongs to the third party. >> i think someone should file a lawsuit against amazon and american express on exactly the same basis. every day of the week, we all
convey enormous amounts of privacy to these web retailers and nobody sees to complain about that. in fact, they're much more intrucive -- >> i guess the argument would be made, well, that's not the government, they don't have police powers. amazon and american express don't have police powers. >> the issue is it's not just the government doing it, people are worried about what will be done with this information. i think your information is obviously given the story of target stores is more at risk in the private sector than the nsa. >> the nsa actually has no police powers. the nsa just gathering -- >> excellent point. >> reams of information for possible clues that they would pass on, let's say, if someone is calling from pakistan, a known terrorist, is calling a number in utah, you know, ten times in the span of two weeks. they would pass it on to the fbi. which then would look into it, we have to get a warrant -- >> you have to get a warrant. >> it's like police gathering tips. >> what about this report by the president's appointed panel,
with basically came out and said do away with that bulk effort and put really significant restraints, bureaucratic restraints, on these programs? >> it would unilaterally disarm these -- >> you think it's that serious? >> i think it goes much further than the white house thought it would go. president obama called these wise men after edward snowden basically released the nsa' play book so to speak, and they came back and said you have to curtail the meta data program, you have to change the way a special court, a secret court, you know, allows the intelligence agencies to look into to follow up leads. and it curtails the president's powers to surveiloverseas. basically to spy overseas. >> no other country has anything like that in terms of restraint, joe, on foreign intelligence gathering.
as i understand. >> it's very difficult to create rules for this kind of regime. the nature of anti-terror defenses is that you never know what you're going to need in advance. it's always we need this information immediately. and we need to find it very fast. so the idea that we're going to create a sent of constraints beforehand is really pernicious. >> what about this argument that the libertarian, in particular, they make it on left, they make it on the right that somehow, look, this is big brother, this is the intrusive state. it is, as judge leon wrote, almost orwellian to think they have this vast capacity to listen in on everything we do. is this an irrational fear? or is it just something we have to come to live with, with some restraints on the government? >> i guess i would put it this way, paul, those of us who live here in new york city and did in 2001, what happened on 9/11 was
rather orwellian, i would say, and, you know, if you are al qaeda, which still exists out there, and you are seeing that the united states is issuing a report like this, and it's going to -- what matt just suggested, i think you've got to be pretty happy. mike rogers, out of the house intelligence committee, and dianne feinstein, out of the senate intelligence committee, both said al qaeda is getting much more sophisticated in the sort of weapons and techniques it's developing. they have not gone to sleep. the question is, is the united states going to go to sleep? >> matt, the question is, where is the president on this? he accepted the report without comment. said, we'll think about it, go at it. but it seems to me he's been voting present on this entire debate. he just doesn't want to defend or seems reluctant to defend the very powers he's been using for five years. >> well, he stuck -- his base obviously wants him to, you know, curtail this back. so does the -- on the right. at the same time, he has been
suck scessful in preventing any terrorist attack -- >> why wouldn't he evoke that? just next thin passing, we havet had another attack? >> he hasn't been willing to speak out and defend these progaps. the key phrase in the report from the white house is potential risk to civil liberties. but there's a very real risk from al qaeda which is now spreading from pakistan to north africa and that is something he has to explain to the american people. >> all right, thank you all very much. when we come back, pope francis, the economist? "time" magazine's man of the year angers some conservatives with his recent writings on inequality. our panel joins the fray next.
alike. his denunciation of so-called trickle down economics isn't sitting well with many economic conservatives. we're back with our guests. we've got the all catholic panel here. so your theology's in order. what do we think about the impact? the larger impact and impression that pope francis has made? >> as catholics, that means we all speak latin. the title of this letter means the joy of the gospel, not the joy of economics. pope's always been concerned really with the attention between the materialism and spiritual life and the idea that in the modern well there's excess materialism.
it isn't just pope francis but his predecessors always had a tendency to deeply criticize capitalism because they associate it with materialism. so they get into areas where they're maybe a little bit over their head. you have to understand his concerns are with the moral life of people living in a capitalist world. this pope has a particular gift for handling the religious side of that equation. as he goes forward, i think that's probably what we'll see more of him doing. >> another thing that's made an impression is his humility and the degree to which he has shed some of the trappings of grandeur of the office and making calls to regular people and that sort of thing and then focusing less on the majesty of the church and more on its pastoral mission, to serve individuals, and salvation. has that made an impression on you? >> for sure. from the first moment he was
elected and he was attacked in argentina by certain people on the left, one of the things that elevated him was the fact he had really walked the walk there. as a cardinal in buenos aires, he could have been in the social circle and so forth, and everybody, to a man, said this is a guy who spends all his time in the slums with the poor really walking the walk. he lived in a humble way. he really lived his mission. >> let me read you, though, a passage here. this gets into the economics from the pope's statement. some people continue to defend trickle down theories which is to assume that economic growth encouraged by a free market will bring about greater justice and inskwl inclusiveness in the world. this opinion expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power, and in the workings of the prevailing economic system. mary, how do you respond? >> well, you know, there are two
big problems with that. first, the idea that the market and market economics has not proven to lift people out of poverty is i would say completely wrong. but secondary, later on in the document, he also says since we can't trust the market we have to rely on the state to defend the common good. this is my real problem with his points on economics. it's fine to say, you know, that he needs to shepherd the flock away from materialism, but to say that we can somehow get closer to christ by engaging in this coercion by the state is completely contradictory to what i understand about christianity. >> through the minute statiminu stations of trickle down government. based on his experience, ministry in argentina, very big government, corporate system, i
can agree if you think that's how markets work. but i do think it's amusing watching much of the media which spends a lot of time pushing religion out of the public square, saying religious teachings have nothing to say about public policy -- >> -- this is an interesting guy, we got to bring him in the dialogue here. but i think people who have that impulse might want to be careful because there are parts of this document that liberals will not really like. he criticizes spirituality without god, which is sort of student body right for modern liberalism, talks about those would want to redefine marriage as -- from mere emotional satisfaction. so there's a lot in here i think that liberals may be offended by, conservatives might want to cheer him. >> are you as disappointed in the economics -- >> yes, i was really quite
disappointed. i think quite what we're seeing here is this is the first steps forward of a rookie pope, all right. popes have always been able to be careful about the way they describe these things. francis, when he was a cardinal in argentina, is very outspoken. he's finding the media, modern media, will define his views for him if he isn't more explicit. and he wasn't quite clear a lot about these issues in this letter. i think if he steps back, he'll say that a pope has to be a little bit more careful about choosing his words. >> we don't listen to him so much for his views on tax rates but we do listen to him as he's trying to save souls. >> the danger is that these sound bites are then taken by people who would defend the state. >> when we come back, a "wall street journal" op-ed exposes a nasty split among democrats. is economic populism a dead end
for the party? [ sniffles, coughs ] shhhh! i have a cold with this annoying runny nose. [ sniffles ] i better take something. [ male announcer ] dayquil cold and flu doesn't treat all that. it doesn't? [ male anner ] alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms plus has a fast-acting antihistamine. oh, what a relief it is! plus has a fast-acting antihistamine. for the most advanceds shaving experience.3d with gyroflex 3d technology, you can get to those hard to reach places for the ultimate shave wet or dry. guaranteed. visit philips.com/upgrade now to save $30.
well, a battle is raging inside the democratic party over an ep ode we recently published in "the wall street journal." two veteran operatives now with the think tank third way argue economic populism is a dead end for their party. and the agenda won't play well outside of massachusetts or new york. now the campaign is on to purge these infidels from the liberal ranks. so, james, they wrote in our paper these aren't conservatives by any stretch of the imagi imagination. they're liberals very well in order. what hearsay did they chit?
>> first of all, saying voters across the country might not be as liberal as people in new york city and in massachusetts -- >> you think? >> think de blasio and warren. the greater sin may have been saying in public that social security is actually paying more out than it's taking in. you're not allowed to say that. i also think, you know, maybe a bit of the anger is the forum they chose. they were not exactly keeping this within the family of democratic discussion. so the fact it was in our pages probably rankled some people on the left. >> this is part of the reaction, de blasio in new york, ran on taxing the rich, barack obama ran in 2012 on taxing the rich. elizabeth warren has made this really her main theme. is this the dominant argument within democratic circles these days, that these guys are pushing back against? >> well, certainly, that's, you
know, the obama style of democracy. and for the democratic party, is certainly that model. i think this is a really healthy conversation to have. because basically it shows that there's still some sane people inside the democratic party. i was amused by the fact that they decided they had to out the funders of the third -- >> even elizabeth warren, who's on the senate banking committee, sent a letter to several big financial organizations saying please disclose what think tanks you're giving money to. as if somehow having banks finance these think tanks you would corrupt what they say. >> we find out the center for american progress has an equally long list corporate donors. >> a liberal think tank. >> exactly. so it's sort of -- reveals a very healthy discussion to have because we're going to get a lot on the table here about what's really behind this feel-good populism. >> the arguments on social
security that the two gentlemen made in our newspaper really goes clinton. the kind of argument in the 1990s. now basically in the minds of some democrats it seems you can't raise those issues. >> let's talk about that it you've got bill clinton democrat, now we've got barack obama democrats. they are not the same thing. ronald reagan famously said he didn't lead the democratic party, the democratic party left him. all right. what we're now finding out there are liberals that we always understood is traditional liberals and now there are progressives which is the left wing of the democratic party. and these people are not singing from the same hymnal. i have to tell you, i've been talking more and more these days to traditional liberal democrats who say i'm going independent. this is not my party anymore. and i just can't really sign up for it fully. so i think the democrats are going to have a real internal debate going forward over just what that party stands for. a lot of people represent what those guys wrote and they're being pushed out. >> the liberals would say, the
progressives would say actually we're winning elections, you know, we won the presidency twice on this agenda. bill de blasio won, elizabeth wa warren won, so what's wrong with that. >> as we said, barack obama, is that a formula for anybody, or was there something special and historic about his campaign? i think a lot of people in the party -- you're not seeing it on msnbc among the louder members of that party but you notice, as far as i can tell, the donors are not fleeing. you did not see a bunch of senators condemning them and renouncing all tie, to the group. there were some who backed up a little under pressure. but basically, elizabeth warren was not successful in getting senate democrats to embrace her view of basically an anti-business agenda. >> briefly, mary, who's going to win that debate? >> i think the center of left will win. i think the perpetual motion
time now for our hits and misses. >> i think we do have to give a miss to barack obama on the nuclear arms negotiations. it looks like they're getting bogged down -- >> with iran? >> with iran, i'm sorry, the united states and iran can't even agree on the wording of the interim agreement. the french government criticized negotiations again today. on thursday, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill to reimpose sanctions if the talks fail. i'm afraid the talks are looking a lot like the agreement over the weapons. >> joe. >> paul, a hit for more obama care accountability in the states than washington, d.c. this week, the director of the
minnesota health insurance exchange was forced out after taking a two-week vacation to costa rica while the state-based exchange floundered. maryland's exchange director was also forced out after her own caribbean vacation to the cayman islands. health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius due for time off? i think she should hit the road. >> in the spirit of the season, a hit to president obama and for a foreign policy move. this week, he announced he would not be attending the opening ceremonies of the sochi winter games in russia. this is a snub to president putin who is really putting a lot on this coming out party, but this is really an overdue corrective in america's all too indulgence policy toward russia. >> hear hear, matt, thanks. if you have your own hit or
miss, please send it to us at j email@example.com. thank you for watching. merry christmas, hope to see you right here next week. fox news alert, this just in, jpmorgan chase now limiting its debit card purchases to $300 a day for its customers who shopped at target. and its also limiting cash withdrawals to just $100 a day accord to reuters news service. after a massive data breach security at target stores put millions of people in jeopardy. we're learning the bank sent an e-mail to its customers after a cyber attack on the u.s. retail target corporation that compromised up to 40 million payment cards during the first three weeks of the holiday shopping season. we'll have more on this coming up.