tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News June 16, 2013 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
i'm chris wallace. the nsa leaker, i'm chris wallace. today, dick cheney weighs in on government surveillance. the individual that admitted making these disclosures, he is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. >> the feds pursue edward snowden. >> i ternly had the authority to wiretap everyone, including the president. >> it's my fear that we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state. >> i want to catch terrorists as much as any american, but what
separates us from them is the rule of law. >> we're trying to be transparent here, protect the security of this country. >> we'll ask former vice president cheney about the nsa surveillance programs. it's a fox news sunday exclusive. then the white house says they will arm the syrian rebels after confirming that bashar al assad used chemical weapons. >> it will not change the battlefield equation, and we must change the equation. >> it is a game changer, or too little, too late? all right now on "fox news sunday." hello and happy father's day. for much of the eight years, dick cheney was a heart beat from the presidency, and he was
in government surveillance as part of the world on terror. we will ask him about the changing u.s. policy on syria, and the bobama administration scandal. we want to start with data collection and the debate about whether it is an invasion of privacy. welcome to fox news. >> let's start with the private contractor that disclosed these programs to the world. here is how he justified his actions. >> you eventually realize these things need to be determined by the public, not someone hired by the government. when your subverting the power of government, that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy? >> what do you think of edward snowden? >> i think he is a traitor. i think he committed crimes, violated agreements, he was a contractor employee, but he had
been granted top secret clearance, and i think it's one of the worst occasions in my memory of somebody with clearance and doing tremendous damage. >> we appear he is still in hong kong and giving the chinese information about alleged u.s. cyber hacking. do you think he was a spy all along for the chinese? do you think he is using this information to buy asylum, and how firm should they be about turning this guy back to us? >> i am deeply suspicious because he went to china. that is not a place you ordinarily go when you want freedom and civil liberties. the question is did he have that connection before he did this. did he have help from inside the
agency? that is to say was there somebody else in nsa who had access to a lot of this stuff and pass it'd to him. but i am very, very worried that he still has additional information he has not released yet. that the chinese would welcome the opportunity and are probably willing to provide immunity or sanctuary for him in exchange for what he does or doesn't know. i don't think this is a one-off disclosure. i think there is a real danger that he will go beyond that. i have trouble believing that someone in his position as a contract employee had access to things. >> you don't think he was acting alone? >> i don't know, you have to ask that question. >> you saw them meet last weekend, were they trying to
rebuild a relationship? how much should we put that on the line to demand that they turn snowden back to us? >> i think you need to be very aggressive. it depends if they think he still have value. >> since the leaks, there has been a lot of criticism on the program from the right and left. i want to focus on conservatives, people like rand paul. they say fine, leave law abiding americans alone, take alook. >> this is what we partly objected to. they can go computer to computer or phone to phone without
specifying who you're targeting. is he wrong? >> i believe he is, two-thirds of the congress today wasn't here on 9/11. we got into it because we have been attacked, the worst since 9/11. so sooner or later, there will be another attack and they will have deadly weapons. and we will consider a nuclear device. we made the decision based on that we had a law enforcement problem, and they authorized the president to use military force. that puts you in the category of using military and intelligence assets. and when you consider the possibility of somebody smuggling something like a
nuclear device into the united states, it becomes very, very important to gather intelligence on your enemies. >> let me ask you some specific questions. you say fine, you find the bad boys, go after their numbers and e-mails, but why do you need information on every law biding american in the country? >> what information? and the answer is phone numbers. and who contacted who? we don't have any names, it's just a big bag of numbers that have been collected. >> it is not private information according to the supreme court, those are business records. . you don't go into that box of numbers if you will unless you have a suspicious member.
you look at their cell phones, their roladex, and see what numbers there had connections in the united states. by preserving that, you're able to come back and see if they were talking with somebody inside. as everybody who has been associated with the program has said, if we had this before 9/11, and the hie jackers were able to use that program, we may have been able to prevent 9/11. so we're not -- and the attention is out there that we have all of this perm information and that you're pouring through it. not true. that's not the way it works. it has been explained by superb guys. we have collected a lot of
numbers, but they're business records. they have been determined by the supreme court not to be private, individual records the way they're often described. >> now the question is being asked why does all of this have to be kept so secret. the terrorists clearly assume we're trying to intercept their phone calls and e-mails. so why not let the american public know the general program, not how you go in, and the al r algorythmes so we can debate it. >> i have problem with the concern. i understand people's concern about it, but an energies program that does reveal sources and methods, is significantly less effective. you're not just revealing it to
the american people, but to your targets. there are rrns for secrecy in the conduct when we set this up in the weeks after '01, we did it in my office, we would give them the lay out of what we were doing and what we were learning for it. then we did it for the elected leadership in both parties, both houses. so they were read into the tram, knee what we were doing, and signed off on it. i once asked a collective group in the spring of '04. first we briefed them, and said should we continue the program, and then they said should we come back and getdditional legislative authorization, and they said no, it will leak.
>> so what right do you think t the american people have? >> well they get to vote. and you have to have trust in them. you don't go out when you're trying to collect data, and in effect tell the enemy what you're doing. it would be a dumb idea. it makes the program significantly less effective. >> let me ask you about that. top u.s. intelligence officials released more information on saturday, let's put some of it on the screen. they say da a from these help break up terror plots. last year they say fewer than 300 phone numbers were checked, and that call of data is destroyed every five years.
given that information, do you think it provides useful information? >> they're forced to put it out, because a individual and the united states no longer needed to maintain this secret. you can't operate that way. we read the german's communication in the past, and we could have announced it to the world, and had this kind of debate, but it would have destroyed the ability to collect it. if you tell your adversary about the resources, it is not as effective. the threat now is terrorists coming back into the united
states using deadlier weapons than ever before. we have to know what they're doing. we have to know who they're in contact with here, and what this program allows them to do, is when we went and captured moham mohamed, we could see who he was talking to in the united states. the guys from 9/11 were in contact with their leadership overseas and some of the ocean here in the united states. if we had read their mail and intercepted those communications and picked up on the numbers here they were using, we would have been able to thwart that attack. >> when the program was revealed, he said well, i got a lot of what i inherited from
you, let's take a look. >> i came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. we evaluated them, scrubbed them, expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safe guards. how much has he scrubbed what you gave him? >> i don't know, i haven't been in the classified information, but i think one of the keys for me, chris, is i know he is one of the finest national security agencies. i know mike hayden well. he later became cia director. we worked with him when he came to me, and we said that there were additional things we could
gather. these men are the finest officers you will find any place in the united states military. i trust them with my life. so what i make of what they're saying is they ought to be believed. >> what do you make of the president suggesting well, i had to scrub up? >> i don't pay a lot of attention to what barack obama says. i find a lot of it not credible. i'm not a fan, obviously. i don't know what he did to the program. the program, obviously from what's now been released is good. i think it has saved lives, and
kept us free from other attacks. >> one last question. some critics say there is a disconnect. and his recent remarks where he indicated that the war on terror is winding down. >> our effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. but this war, like all wars, must end. >> what do you think of the president suggesting where we are now. doesn't it make it harder to justify this surveillance in the far on terror is minding down? >> he is wrong, it's not winding down. if you look at the part of the world that is a safe harbor now, it runs all across north africa. all of those places, like the
muslim power coming to the brotherhood. today we're all concerned about syria. think about what it would be if the north korean built nuclear reactor had not been destroyed six years ago. we had a huge mess on our hands. the problem is bin laden may be dead, but we have a lot of al qaeda and al qaeda want to being. it is proof that al qaeda is operating in libya. so he is just dead wrong in regards to the status of the threat. one of our biggest problems is we're at an important point where the president of the united states should stand up and say this is a righteous program, and i posupport it, an he has failed to be forthright, honest, and credible.
we're going to take a break. when we come back, we will discuss his decision to arm the syrian rebels and the scandals involving the irs and benghazi. more when we come back. [ male announcer ] running out of steam? ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. we chip away. at redefining capability. f whatever days may come. like beach days... rainy days... even vacation days. made with pride. crafted with passion. this is the new 2014 jeep grand cherokee. it is the best of what we're made of. well-qualified lessees
can lease the 2014 grand cherokee redo 4x4 for $359 a month. the irs is out of control targeting law-abiding citizens playing politics losing their receipts for lavish spending let's end the irs [typewter] callor go to 88-390-3450 end the irs dotcom we can do it. hundreds of thousands of us have contributed or signed up. our best chance ever to shutter the irs is now
weapons. >> we don't, at this point, believe that the u.s. has a national interest in pursuing an intense, open ended military engagement through a no fly zone in syria at this jumpture. >> is it wise for him to get involved at this point? is it enough? and generally speaking, how do you think he handled syria over the two wears of the syrian war? i think jonathan toews had it right. now it's hard to understand that it's the use of chemical members that triggered this result. there were 92,000 people killed that were not affected by
chemical weapons. where was the concern then? it's not clear to me what the mission is here. is it humanitarian? is it geo strategic. is there a vested interest in the outcome? are we involved in a war with the soviets or the russians? i think it's important that assad go down. we had an opportunity if you cared about it, to provide support without having to get american forces directly involved. they took a path, now they're going to do it, but the question is are they a day late and a dollar short. >> what about no fly zones? strikes on syrian air strikes? >> like was said before on this
network, a former general, a close friend of mine, from a military standpoint, being able to accomplish something may provide success for the no fly zone. syria has a fairly sophisticated anti-air capability. and sophisticated ground to air missiles. so it's a problem. again, i think it's important for the administration to come back and specify what is a u.s. national interest here. it seems to be that now you have evidence that they used chemical weapons and killed 150 people with chemical weapons. is that our national interest? i'm not sure they have straight a what their objectives is? >> is it a general principal, no one left behind. but back after benghazi, leon
panetta said that was not possible evgiven the circumstances. >> you don't deploy forces into harm's way without information about what's taking place. >> given the circumstances that night, and what we were told about the deployment of forces, was the decision by the president and the pentagon not to send u.s. forces in those seven hours, was that an appropriate decision or not? >> i don't think it was. my experience was, especially on 9/11, especially in that part of the world, where we anticipated that al qaeda might well try to mark the anniversary of 9/11 with an attack. in a location where they had an
enormous amount of intelligence, the conflict and danger. the ambassador comes out saying we're on the attack. we were always prepared. groups, organizations, and teams are also ready to roerpt operate drop of a hat. i found it difficult to reconcile leon and his statement that we could not have done anything. they could have been ready before the crisis developed. it was an hour away. >> that was a base in italy. and they got -- if you're not going to be ready in libya of all places, then where are you going to be ready for them? the military has the capability and they haven't used it. i think that was a bad call. >> what do you think of the president's decision to name susan rice to be his new national security advisor?
>> she appears to be part of the cover up. one of the concerns was a political issue. the whole notion that this was a terrorist attack, which was was, undermines the narrative. she went up, and it had been put together at the state department. but i think that was a huge mistake. what she did was a huge mistake. i think she lacks credibility, and she doesn't need to be confirmed. which she be a national security advisor. but somebody's judgment who was so flawed. >> let's go to the irs targeting of groups with the name tea party, patriot, or 912 in their names, employees that have been
interviewed have had conflicting stories about cincinnati or whether it came from higher ups. so far there is no evidence, no hard evidence, of any involvement in the white house so far. and someone who has been around, what do you make of the irs scandal? >> i think it's one of the worst abuses of power. it was clearly used for political uses to go after a particular category. it is my tide of the political speck truck, but regardless of who it was, that is the kind of gross abuse of power that everybody is concerned about. i have trouble believing that two guys? cincinnati dreamed it up. i was involved in the nixon years, i was the director of
operations, and i had to oversee 3,000 irs agencies. they worked hard to take the rules and regulations written by the council, and implement them on the field. the professionalism that i had observed in that organization would be doing that. some guys on their own, picking out a political class to go after, that they would do that -- >> that's the first time on foxx news sunday, but th-- on fox ne sunday, that they would give an exam here. but i think i personally believe i cannot think of a situation where it didn't come from higher up. the other scandal, the
justice department possibly prosecuting james for his role in repealing what seemed to be classified information. back in 2006. i love the way you're checking -- >> turning it off. >> making sure it doesn't go off again. >> back in 2006, there were reports that you raised the possibility of prosecuting a "new york times" reporter for breaking the story that the bush administration ordered and was engaged in warrantless wiretaps. it that proof? did you consider his prosecution of the "new york times"? and what is your philosophy about if reporters can, should, are liable for criminal prosecution for exposing national security secrets? >> i was not advocating prosecuting him.
i did think that the "new york times" violated the law. they published information about communication intelligence. it is a felony for ten years to do that. i urged that we ought to investigate. nobody has a nerve to go after the "new york times." but it's the books. i thought, admittedly, ami hard rock on some of these things. it's probably why. others say we don't want to prosecute the "new york times," but there is a provision of law that is very clear, publication, communication intelligence, and it has never been enforced. >> but you think it should be? >> that or take it off the books. it was not aimed at the reporter, specifically that the
"new york times" has been asked by the president of the united states, with a publisher, editor, and washington bureau chief in the oval office, please don't publish this, it will did enormous damage to national security, and they did it anyway. your health. you got a heart transplant 15 months ago. what are you able to do now before you were able to do. i don't expect you to get warm and fuzzy, but what does it mean to do you have a new lease on life, literally. >> it is nothing short of a miracle. i am in a deep debt in the kndor
and family. i had a pump put in my chest that was battery operated that kept me alive for 20 months, and now i wang up every day with a smile with the gift of a day i didn't expect to see. >> happy father's day. >> thank you, you too. >> up next, we'll ask our sunday panel if if the plan to arm the syrian rebels will do anything in the civil war. how many simple ingredients does your dog food have? 30? 20? new purina one beyond has 9. the simplified purina one beyond. learn more about these wholesome ingredients at purinaone.com plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day women's 50+ is a complete multivitamin designed for women's health concerns as we age. it has 7 antioxidants to support cell health.
for us to sit by and watch these people be r a, paped and murdered, and we're talking about giving them more weapons, that's insane. >> john mccain talking about the decision to arm the syrian rebels is too little, too late. we have jane harmon, carl rove, and ron williams. the "wall street journal" has an editorial this weekend, it's called dabbling in syria. obama arms the rebels, but not
enough to defeat assad and his patrons. >> the situation is so advanced, it changes what we need to do. it means all of the talk may be for naught even if he tries to do something. that means the word of the president of the united states who presiding over the great super power of the world, and it's not worth much because he did not prepare to back it up with effective actions. i think that is a loss for him and the country. >> even bill clinton this week was turning on president obama in a private event with john mccain, he was quoted assaying president barack obama would like like, quote, a total fool, if he paid too much attention to
the polls and did not get involved in syria. did he wait too long? >> i think so. i agree with the former vice president's talk about a need for a strategy in syria. ben rodes should have explained the middle east and what we did in leadership ya. do i think that we should be doing this. in jordan, we'll leave a few f 16s behind, and i'm worried about john mccain's form of a no fly zone. but i think being aggressive will help us get to the peace table with russia.
>> we're two years too late. two years ago in august, president obama said it was time for assad to go. we had done little since then and our credibility is deeply damaged. light weapons may have had a big impact two years ago. i'm dubious to the impact they will have now. the gulf states indicated a willingness to supply weapons to the rebels. we had the announcement that the iranians are sending guards, hezbollah helped open several new fronts in the country where the iranian revolution is creating a front by attacking israel. american action may have made for a more stable situation
today. i'm concerned that it is way too little, and way too late. >> let's pick up on that. a lot of people are calling this halfway measures. no fly zone, no air strikes to degrade the air advantage they have. at this point no anti-tank, but that is a possibility. what can you accomplish? >> it's a empire. as they said, this is coming from ben rodes assistant. >> what do you make of that? the fact that the president doesn't come out and ape announce this change in policy? >> i think senator mccain picked up on this when he said look at the post. they do not want the united states to get involved in
another war in the middle east. and we are pulling out of the the wars, and that's the clear trust. but the idea is key, leaving the patriot missiles, going to northern ireland and reaching out it putin and talking to what this means in the middle east. for threats with jordan, and making it clear that the united states is playing a league role. the united states is not disengaged, but acting as a leader, and the united states will not allow the rebels to lose. when you say that, you change the tone of the conversation. you open it to negotiation. >> look, if the united states wants to have credibility, let
me go back to the questions chris asked you. we heard from ben rodes, you mentioned the polls, every president is con trastrained by that, and should be, but for these, the polls are seldom at the outset in favor. people in this country are averse to that. this is an area where presidents have to lead by what they do and what they say. let's go back to the first gulf war. did anyone think that when iran invaded kuwait there was any serious sentiment? president bush came out and said this will not stand. i could not believe it, but as he led, opinion turned around. and by the time that the conflict was engaged -- >> wait, let me just interrupt
for a second. you mentioned trying to get into on international conference. the u.s. is talking about getting on the same page with the british and the french. if you look at the situation, you really think he is going to persuade putin to give up? >> let's remember bosnia. that's what i was going to bring up, where we were involved in an air campaign, and bombing, and that got us to the table in dayton. we're not doing it yet, and we have to show the russians that we're tough, and we have not shown that yet. and i think john kerry will be at the meeting, and we will -- no.
his negotiation is critical there, his counter part. >> the militants -- >> but carl, they don't want. they don't bank on bashar staying. if they think he will fall, they will intervene. >> they spent the last two years, arming asad, and keeping him in power, and they will continue to do. we are kidding ourselves if we think there is a magic moment in dublin. they will get him to bring -- >> we're going to take a break here. did edward snowden help us understand what our government was up to, or did he compromise our security? vo: i've always thought the best part about this country
is that we get to create our future. you get to take ownership of the choices you make. the person you become. i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not sitting by as their life unfolds. and they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.
this is "a," incredibly damaging. this is incredibly damaging, and this person is a traitor to the united states of america. people will because that authority for nebraska fafariou purposes. >> a case of the debate going on in both parties about the government's sweeping surveillance program. congresswoman hartmon from capitol hill, where do you come down on the nsa programs, and how do you respond to the critics on both sides that say it is to intrusive on millions
of americans? >> a place that amended the foreign attack in 2008 to bring these programs clearly under the law, and it works with a foreign intelligence surveillance court with federal judges that rotate in and out, full disclosure, massive disclosure to congress westbound and then an executive bran thatch can't do anything. so this is the separation of powers. some disagree with this program. i think it should be debated. maybe it could be narrowed. but it has been sunseted. all of the records, the provision, and the amendments, and renewed by congress every three years, and it protects our country. and i do agree with mike rogers, that this compromise, this
leaker, as potentially really hurt us in national security terms. >> there is also a debate within the democrats, how do you feel about so many remembers from rand paul, to mike of the autho the patriot act saying this is too intrusive. >> i respect that. you can be a civil libertarian and there are civil libertarians in both parties, but you have to be consistent. if you don't like this program, which was accessed 300 times last year, you have to be against local law enforcement being able to access routine business records of the telephone company and local investigations as well. you can't turn on a cop drama on television where somebody isn't pinging a cell phone or looking at phone calls from a land line or telephone booth to solve a crime on television. it is routinely done on a large scale at the local law enforcement level. the difference is that apparently this program holds
onto records for five years. we don't know how long each individual phone company may keep records available to local law enforcement. this one requires a warrant to be able to search the record of any american. you can monitor foreign communications without a warrant, but in order to search this database, you have to have a warrant issued by a fisa court judges. that's not what happens routinely with local law enforcement which can get the local phone company to run a trace on a phone, give you a connection of a phone number. how many times have we sent the police to the hotel on route 1 because we searched that phone record. you have to be consistent. >> you have been to that hotel on route 1 ever? >> as i recall, it was somebody named wallace, well known drug dealer or something. >> the man that disclosed the secrets, edward snowden, apparently hold up in hong kong.
we are told giving the chinese a lot of information about u.s. cyber hacking of chinese and hong kong computers. juan, what do you make of him? >> i see that young people in the country are thrilled, they made him into a hero, a martyr. he is no daniel ellsberg is. >> you're hurting me, buddy. i mean, the pentagon, he was the one orchestrated release of the pentagon papers to "the new york times." this was not about revealing corruption or lies. he was revealing secrets to do with effective programs to battle terrorists in the age of anti-terrorism. to me, i think this is a guy who took an oath when he said he was going to work as government contractor for nsa and he broke that oath, so i don't think
that's a martyr or hero, i think it is more in the category of traitor and he should be extradited and should be prosecut prosecuted. the point is, yes, we need a debate about secrecy, and balance with national security. that should take place with far more energy in 2002 when we passed the patriot act, there was only one senator that voted against it, it was russ finegold of wisconsin. yeah, we need to fight terrorists but sacrifice civil liberti liberties. now to go back, say we didn't know about it, baloney. we knew about it all along, have known about it since 2006. everybody knows about it. and to pretend gosh, we didn't know, this is a shock, that's ridiculous. >> let brit in. >> not too much fuss about edward snowden. i think what it turns out, what was true about what he revealed wasn't new, in fact, i was
reading this morning a quite lengthy usa today story from may of 2006 which laid this whole thing out, nsa, telephone records, massive gathering of them and so on to be searched later, so the whole thing has been in public domain, and his claims about what he could do from his desk, much doubt has been cast on that. a lot of what was new wasn't true. you put those two things together, i think this is much ado about not very much and much ado you about not much of a guy. he didn't reveal anything that wasn't known that was true, and a lot of what he said was new was not true. my view is we should not be paying so much attention to edward snowden. >> i disagree. whistleblowers should be protected, but this was no whistleblower, this guy was dangerous. also, there may be more records -- >> knew about it since 2006. >> may be more records turned over if he used a thumb drive. this is a wake up call for our
clearance process. this guy got into the system because he was a security guy. >> 83,000 private employees and contractors have top secret clearance. a half million. >> he was in one of the most important jobs. i think the people that are it administrators in charge, even if 29, ought to be federal employees and there ought to be supervision above them. he was one inch above the sheriff in about five jobs and the system didn't catch him. >> apparently he is in china saying he knows about protocols used, the u.s. hacking chinese institutions and the like. >> we don't know if that's true or not. >> why is he doing business with the chinese? is he going to spy for the chinese? >> maybe sent him to mislead them about our capabilities. this guy, i want him prosecuted. this stuff was largely out in
2006, both programs largely described in the public back then. >> see you next week. check out panel plus, the group picks up with the discussion on the website, foxnewssunday.com and follow us on twitter. up next, we hear from you. look what mommy is having. mommy's having a french fry. yes she is, yes she is. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. 100% vegetable juice, with three of your daily vegetable servings in every little bottle. folks have suffered from frequent heartburn but now, thanks to treating with prilosec otc,
we don't have to suffer like they used to. [ bell dings ] ♪ [ horse whinnies ] getting heartburn and then treating day after day is a thing of the past. block the acid with prilosec otc, and don't get heartburn in the first place. we've surcome a long way. ♪ [ le announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
>> chris: time for the mail. time for the mailbag. you have plenty to say about the nsa surveillance programs. brenda writes on twitter, it needs to be more targeted to the criminal element with a search warrant, not a massive gathering of all records. al from california, the issue is that people do not trust the federal government at this point. the obama administration has shown it is partisan and does not appear to respect the constitutional limits. and a mix of opinions on facebook. this one from ken. this is to protect us and this guy that let it out is a traitor. but laura rodriguez says if it helps stop terror attacks like 9/11, i am all for it. i sure have nothing to hide. that's it for today. happy father's day to all you dads. for my kids, be sure to call your old man today. have a great week. see you in enext week. news