she risked her life trying to stop a santa monica rampage killer. now she says this about people who believe guns will make it safer. >> anybody who goes out to buy a gun thinking that they could defend themselves against someone like this is crazy. >> she joins me in a moment. also, how many of your privacy are you willing to give up? the government tracks your calls and e-mails. how much safer will you feel? a former head of the cia and ron paul who says that nsa leak edward snowden has done a great service for americans. on the other side, jeffrey toobin says snowden is no hero and should go to jail. my exclusive, the brother of the man who shot trayvon martin. this is "piers morgan live."

we have a lot to get through tonight. but i want to begin with the santa monica rampage shootings. john zawari shot his father and brother and set their car on fire. debra fine survived his rampage, she was shot four times and joins me now exclusively with her husband, russell. welcome to both of you. debra, what an extraordinary thing. i have a home not far from where all this happened. it's one of the last places you'd expect to come face to face with a mass shooter like this, what was going through your mind. what were you doing right up to the moment you saw this man? >> i was -- i'm an executive, and i've run several companies, i've taken time off to be with my children. i was at a singing lesson, laying down tracks to send to carson daly for "the voice. >> really?

>> yes, i was. >> there you were, just driving along on your way to an audition. and suddenly, you see what? >> i turn the corner and what i saw was a man with black hair in a kevlar vest with a black shirt and a rifle standing on the corner on the left-hand corner, motioning a girl in her car to come forward. and she did, but he still had his gun trained on her, and he was so intent on looking at her, and she started to get out of the car. i got angry and i thought, why isn't he leaving her alone? she's doing what he's asking. she's pulling over. and she started to get out of the car, i accelerated and when his gaze went from her to me, what i saw in his eyes was terrifying, because that was not a human being.

that was somebody who was going out to execute. he had no higher functioning going on that i could tell, just absolute execution. and when he turned his gaze to me i realized that that's what he was going to do, and when he shot into the car, i hit the curb that he was on. and the bullet entered -- two bullets entered my left shoulder and threw me over to the side. and then he just stood in front of the car as he was walking to her, to carjack her car and he just kept shooting and shooting. and i felt the bullets go into my other side, it crossed my eye. it tore my ear in half, so it was very, very close, and i just ducked and i just remember laying on the passenger side thinking, please stop. just please stop shooting. and -- but i needed to play dead so he wouldn't come back.

i had my cell phone and i was calling my husband and just praying that somebody would come out to the car to help me. which she did. they did, as soon as he left. >> russell, i mean, what was the first thing you heard about this? >> i'm sitting in my office, my phone rings, it says my wife is calling, i pick it up, expecting a normal conversation about what time i'm going to be home and what we're going to do with the kids that night, and i hear my wife yelling she's been shot. and it's a call you never want to get. >> it certainly isn't. debra, i mean, what kind of gun was he using? >> he had an automatic rifle. and it was very obvious that it was. that's why at first i thought he might be with the s.w.a.t. team,

because i couldn't understand how a civilian would have a rifle like that. and he had magazine after magazine after ammunition, so i thought he was official. >> we know now officially that he had a handgun, but he also had a pawn the 223 bushmaster ar 15 semiautomatic rifle, which is exactly the same type of weapon that was used by adam lanza at sandy hook and by james holmes, the shooter in aurora. when you come face to face with that, had you ever had much thought about guns before this? >> i know a bit about guns, and i have shotguns at a range, so i know what they look like, but i've never seen somebody out on the street with an automatic rifle the way it was -- it was aimed at first the girl that he hijacked and then myself. i have never seen that, of course. >> i think -- >> unless it was somebody on the s.w.a.t. team. >> i think to clarify, it was a semiautomatic, but i fired both the semiautomatic and the automatic, i would imagine from

what i experienced at close range there's not much difference. they fire incredibly quickly, don't they? >> they fire incredibly quickly. eight bullets entered the car, right away. two hit me on the left side, three more hit me on the right side. and the rest exploded into the seats and the shrapnel went across my chest and one bullet went into my ear. it was very fast. >> i believe that you have the shirt with you that you were wearing which has your blood on

it, and obviously -- a hideous memento of this awful experience. have you got it there? >> i do. it's -- i didn't realize i had this until i got back from the hospital. when they picked me up and put me in the ambulance, this is all that was left of my t-shirt, this is where the two bullets went in to my left side and it tore across my chest and all the shrapnel went across my chest. and on the other side is where the other three bullets went in. this was all that was left of my shirt in a matter of three seconds, four seconds. and i just. i can't believe this was literally torn off my body. the force tore it off my body within three seconds. >> i feel it's a miracle you survived, you must feel incredibly lucky to be alive, don't you? >> i feel very lucky to be alive. >> you also -- what you may well have did, may have saved the life of the other woman in the car. he asked her about you. let's watch a piece of this.

>> i'm so glad that i was able to help her, when i saw her being pulled over to the side, and i saw her getting out of the car, and he was aiming at her. i knew that he was going to shoot her. that's why i sped up to get in between of two of us. and thank god i was moving so much in the car that he didn't actually kill me, because i think i'm the only person that he shot that he didn't kill. and she and i are the only two people that survived. and i can only imagine what her -- after seeing me shot, having him get into the car with her, my heart goes out to her, i'm so glad i could be there for her. it's been very painful. but i'm very glad that i could help her in anyway. >> in a strange twist of fate, i think that this event that occurred with debra, also raised the alert about this event to

police before he had time to quietly get himself on to the campus and perhaps execute the plan that he had been thinking about for quite a while. by the time he got to the campus, there had been time to mobilize, i personally believe my wife saved many more people than just the one. >> she certainly did. the clip i was talking about, we have it here, it's from an interview anderson did with the woman who you came upon about to be carjacked. listen to what she said. >> i tried to escape from him, but the direction i was facing was right into a cement wall, i would have had to turn around and go back past him, so i entered the campus on sidewalks that were pedestrians sidewalks and drove through the campus

wildly screaming at people, go the other way, there's a gunman, go the other way, and i got to where i couldn't drive any more, and i jumped out and ran into a building. but i panicked that he had a bomb, and so i decided i should get far away from there. >> absolutely extraordinary. what both of you had to go through. she said in the interview, she would like to meet up with you. would you be prepared to do that? >> i would love to meet up with her, i would. we both went through something that was very profound, and i -- again, i'm so glad that i could help her and what she still had to go through after that was terrifying, i'm sure, him shooting while she was driving. so i'd love to reach out to her and meet her. >> when we got to the hospital, piers. we didn't know the extent of

what had happened. we were not aware of where he had gone or that he had carjacked this woman, we just knew what debra had done and what happened. and all debra kept saying in the hospital, is does anyone know what happened to that be woman that he was pointing the gun at for an hour. until we found out she was alive. >> truly another miraculous escape. finally, debra, i don't want to harp on about this, but i'm going to for a moment. that is just how you feel about somebody like this who we now know had mental health issues, was known to the authorities, is able to arm himself with this killing machine, assault rifle, the same one used in sandy hook and aurora. he's able to arm himself with 1,300 rounds of ammunition. and a handgun. dress up like he's in some kind of military combat and just march around, carjacking setting fire to homes, shooting people, people he knew, people he didn't know. and then went to a school where he could have caused absolute mayhem, unfortunately didn't because of the speed of people responding.

how do you feel as an american that this is continuing to happen again and again and again. but nobody in washington seems to care enough to do something about it? >> i've always been very neutral in terms of gun control. so what you're hearing is no agenda whatsoever. but how i feel about it is, how was he able to get this weapon? how was he able to amass so much ammunition? he had had a record that was a juve record so it couldn't be checked into, we still don't know what he did at the age of -- under 18. my question is, when is it going to stop? when is enough enough? when have enough children been shot? when have enough schools been raided and just when is it going

to stop? and what is it going to take? this was in santa monica, this was just a normal day. is it going to take god forbid, but is it going to take a senator to get shot? i don't know what it's going to take, but i would have to say, enough is enough, over the last year, what, seven times this has happened? it's enough. >> clearly this is a failing. >> russell, please, have your say. >> i would just say, this was a huge tragedy for everyone involved, for the shooter, his family, for everybody who was injured or passed away. you know, the system totally failed here. it failed to keep someone from arming himself who should not have been armed, it failed to help him before he got to a situation where that was the only road that he even felt like taking, there were a number of places this could have been stopped. here we are at the end of this,

with a tragedy that i just have to say, where were all the safeguards that could stop something like this from happening. >> well, it has to stop, and people have to be speaking loudly about it, and it must not be allowed to go quiet, washington has to wake up to the fact that you, debra could have lost your life on friday, laura sisk could have lost her life, others did lose their lives. this insanity has got to stop. i want to say how grateful we are to you for your heroic actions on that day, you showed true heroism, a great american, and we all appreciate it very much indeed. thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, piers. when we come back, ron paul, why americans should be thankful to edward snowden and former cia director. dad. how did you get here?

i don't know. [ speaking in russian ] look, look, look... you probably want to get away as much as we do. with priceline express deals, you can get a fabulous hotel without bidding. think of the rubles you'll save. with one touch, fun in the sun. i like fun. well, that went exactly i as planned.. really? before i do any projects on on my own.st at angie's list, you'll find reviews written by people just like you. i love my contractor, and i am so thankful to angie's list for bringing us together. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

i had access to all intelligence rosters working at the nsa. i sitting at my desk, had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your account ability to a federal judge, to even the president if i had a personal e-mail.

>> chilling words from an nsa leader, edward snowden. a source of leaks that unleashed a storm of controversy. he revealed massive nsa surveillance information. on a scale that many people never imagined. snowden is a former cia employee, and also worked for a consulting firm, booz allen hamilton. joining me now, a former vice president of booz allen. chairman of the foundation of defense of democracy, welcome to you, ambassador. what is your reaction to edward snowden's decision to leak this information? >> i think mr. snowden had no right to allocate to himself the right to decide where to strike the balance between liberty and security.

president obama pointed out a couple days ago, this balance has to be struck, and that the court system, the intelligence branch, the president, the attorney general, and the congress with the reviews by the congressional committees involved, every few months. this has been a very precisely crafted system for making the decision about where to strike the balance between liberty and security. and snowden, irrigated that entire decision to himself. he decided it was him who got to strike that balance, not the representatives we vote for, not the president, and not the courts. i think for arrogance and improper behavior, the -- irrigating to yourself that kind of power when you're supposed to be taking care of your duties in the intelligence community is

stunningly wrong and since he's confessed to the crime, i hope that when we are able to take him into custody, he's locked up for the rest of his life. >> what do you believe the consequences of his decision could be at their worst? >> well, the problem is, that once you start explaining to al qaeda and hezbollah how you are operating, they can avoid what you're doing, and you can't explain to the american people without explaining to hezbollah and al qaeda. once you're sitting there blabbing about how these decisions are made, you have decided, you're going to tell our enemies -- those who want to kill us, those who want to fly airplanes into buildings and all the rest -- how this works. you decided that yourself if you're snowden, he could well be responsible in the future for many, many deaths. we don't know, and we may never

know for sure, but one doesn't know what goes into individual decisions by the terrorists. but snowden has made it easier for them to kill americans and others. >> isn't the reality, that if you're in al qaeda, of course, you imagine the american intelligence agencies are probably trying to check your e-mail or your internet traffic or your cell phones? i mean, i've watched dramas on tv for years, where this exact thing is done. it's not a secret. what is concerning many americans is the sheer quantity of private data that appears to be being amassed by the government without anyone outside of a few select people in the judiciary, executive, and congress, knowing about it, and it may be a symptom of modern times, i feel uncomfortable, people i don't know know everything about my online activity. why should they? >> well, they don't know everything about your online

activity, because it's illegal -- >> they could, right? >> it's illegal for them to take some steps of it, such as to get into the substance of the intercept, what this is as far as americans are concerned is metadata, it's whose calling whom and so forth. if we talk on the phone to one another every day, and one day i call, i'm zawahiri in pakistan, someone is going to say, i wonder what's been going on between woolsey and piers, let's have a look at that, routinely, and systematically, there's no looking into the substance of your calls or mine, it doesn't work that way. >> i imagine -- just hold that for one moment. i want to bring in a man who says that edward snowden has done a great service to the american people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret. ron paul is a former congressman and former presidential candidate. he's now chairman of the

campaign for liberty. thank you for joining me. you are a supporter of edward snowden and his actions, why? >> well, from what i hear and what he's done, i mean, he's done a great service because he's telling the truth and this is what we are starved for. the american people are starved for the truth. and when you have a dictatorship or authoritarian government, truth becomes treasonous, and this is what they do. if you are a whistle-blower or if you're trying to tell the american people that our country is destroying our rule of law and destroying our constitution, they say -- they turn it on and say, you're committing treason. so this is a big problem. and to expect any changes without an announcement like this, things keep getting worse, they've gotten worse steadily for the past ten years, so essentially there is no fourth amendment any more.

and for somebody to tell the american people the truth is a heroic effort, and he knows it's risky, he knows he's committing civil disobedience and he knows he could get punished, he believes very sincerely, i'm sure, i've never met the man. he believes very seriously what our government is doing to us is so serious, that somebody has to speak out. and i think the large majority of the american people are sick and teared of hearing how many people are having surveillance on them whether it's their phones, their internet, e-mail and everything else. as a matter of fact, i think the president ought to send him a thank you letter, the president ran on transparency, we're getting a lot of transparency now, finally we're getting the president to fulfill his promise about transparency, that's pretty exciting for me, i believe in transparency, we have our government -- we have our government turned on its head, the government is supposed to be open and we're supposed to have

our privacy, but we don't have any privacy and the government's totally secret. and then they campaign this with what they do with the irs? maybe that's how they line up their targets in the irs, they modify, you know, they check on our phone calls and find out what kind of business deals we're doing, so we can audit them and all these kinds of things, it's totally out of control. >> it may be, but the reality is, the new pugh research center tracking millions of americans said the following, is it acceptable for the nsa to track calls of millions of americans acceptable 56%, not acceptable 41%. the significant majority of americans appear to be in favor of this. going back to you, ambassador woolsey if i may, i want to read the fourth amendment of the constitution, to remind people. the right of the people to be secure in a person's houses, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be warranted.

particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. i just don't see how you can say that what is going on here in complete secrecy from 99% of the people it's being done to, lives up to the fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution. it's a breach, isn't it? >> it depends on whether or not you want to preserve your country's ability to operate in a world of terrorism in which a lot of twists are very technically sophisticated. if you want to defend the country, you're going to have to defend it. >> i understand that, that wasn't the question, the question is where -- >> it is the question. >> well -- >> it is the question, the balance between security and liberty is the question. >> i understand that is your answer, but the question i was putting to you is whether what is going on given the absolute secrecy with which it has been going on, until edward snowden revealed this, whether it is actually allowable under the fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution.

where is the probable cause -- >> given the fact -- >> 99.9% of the information being effectively seized here? >> given the fact that this system was put together by the people's elected representatives it's been upheld by the courts. that it's monitored by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. that it's monitored by attorney general and officials in the executive branch, every 90 days, it was one of these 90 day reports that was leaked. and that it is systematically supported by people like the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, senator feinstein. i think you would have to say that the government on this subject has done a reasonable job of balancing these two very important interests. if you try to look at liberty without considering security at all. you're putting on blinders. it really -- you can't answer the question.

just as you couldn't answer it if you just talked about security and not about liberty. they both have to be considered, and you apparently -- piers, do not want to consider security? >> no, no, i do want to consider security. i was putting a question to you, i was intrigued by what your answer would be. i've been fighting a lengthy gun control campaign, where the absolute letter of the second amendment is deemed sacrosanct to so many americans. many are quite happy for their rights under the fourth amendment to be written over. that's what i find an interesting contradiction. >> well -- >> let me just -- i'm going to get ron paul to put a different question to him. if you had been president, which you could have been, you ran for office this time, and you could have won. if you had been president, are you in all seriousness telling me that you would have stopped all of this tracking of data in the way that the nsa has been doing it? >> an awful lot of it, but it

wouldn't be stopped, you would still have your -- you would -- you would still have your transparency. i mean, you would still have your intelligence gathering, but it would be done under the law. you would have probable cause and courts. this idea that you can go to the court and get a warrant, that's ridiculous, that's like the monitoring of the president saying, oh, well we're going to pick and choose who we're going to assassinate, american citizen or not. we have monitors, we're going to study this, that's the rule of law? what he's doing is repealing the magna carda. this is not only repealing the principles of liberty, but destroying the constitution. so my question should be, to all of you who defend this none sense is, what should the penalty be for the people who destroy the constitution. they're always worrying about how they're going to destroy the american citizens who tell the truth to let us know what's going on. we ask the question, what is the

penalty for the people who deliberately destroy the constitution and rationalize and say, we have to do it for security. well, you know what franklin said about that, you end up losing your security and your freedoms too. so i think we've embarked on a dangerous course. the american people are with us on this, it's totally out of control, and i would say if you're confused about what we should do, just read the constitution. what's wrong with that? if you don't like it, get people to repeal it and change the constitution, but not just to deny it. we go to war without a declaration. we totally ignore the constitution. we have no rule of law, and people say, let secret courts do this, and the governments to know everything, and the american people have no privacy, i mean you're -- that reflects an intimidation, people are insecure, and you'll need more authoritarianism.

you're justifying dictatorship, is what you're doing. >> it's a fascinating debate. i want to thank you, ron paul for joining me. it's a very contentious issue. the american public -- >> before we go to the break, quick show of hands, who here thinks about what edward snowden, the leaker did was right? a few hands. and who thinks absolutely what he did was wrong? by my quick look around, i'd say slightly favor of those who think what he did was wrong. it's a great debate. when we come back, i'm going to talk to people, two men who know what may be going on closed doors at the white house tonight. more questions from our studio audience. the nsa leaks have no sign

the nsa leaks have no sign of dying down. two men who know all about white house in turmoil, ari fleischer, lenny davis is a former clinton special council. five rules -- also joining us, cnn's legal genius, jeffrey toobin. let's start with you, ari, you've been in the white house through many a crisis. i find this debate fascinating, i think it's perfectly permissible to see both sides of the argument. to find yourself nodding away as i have done the last few days at one both sides are saying. >> i don't find myself agreeing with the obama administration very often, but i'm with the

obama administration on this one. how the president came out and continued the push on the policy. i think it's important to keep us safe, it is legal. it's been authorized by all three branches of the government. you really have found a broad center in the united states, is doing what's necessary to keep us safe. >> jeffrey toobin, is anything that's happened here illegal? >> certainly not, as far as we can tell. i mean, again -- >> if it's perfectly legal, why all the fuss? >> that's so -- that's only the beginning of the debate. there are lots of things that are legal, that people object to, there are laws that we think are wrong. i think there are many good reasons to protest this law. i'm troubled by this law, i think there are right ways to do it, and there are wrong ways to do it, and by a 29-year-old kid, just throwing open the safe and giving away documents that people have devoted years of their lives to creating and protecting. that's the wrong way to protest.

>> you've been through many a crisis. is he a hero or a villain or somewhere in between? this character edward snowden. >> i read jeffrey toobin's article, i recommend it to everyone. he violated the law. so rather than label him, he chose to take a job, sign a statement swearing he would uphold classified information, as i did when i served on the civil liberties and privacy right board. he knowingly violated the oath. someone who knowingly violates a law he thinks is unjust, takes the consequences of that violation is often upheld in the long run. to answer your question, the fourth amendment has been upheld in this particular program, it applies to foreign citizens, the

program does, not the fourth amendment. i've seen this program operating in realtime, when i was a member of this privacy board. and i saw the careful scrutiny that each person involved in the terrorist surveillance program, when they approached the line of encroaching on the fourth amendment rights of american citizens, they pulled back to the point where there were so many checks and balances within that agency, where i was watching the program, i sometimes wondered whether we were missing evil terrorists because of concern about privacy and civil liberties. >> here's my problem with this, i don't disagree with almost anything the three gentlemen just said, however, what i do find disconcerting, when you look at what happened with the irs, it comes down to trusting the government and the people that work in it, doesn't it? i'm not sure after what happened with the irs, that trust is still there, the way it was. let me go to steve, you have a

question along this line? >> a comment and a question. really i think it's interesting, the fact that what the nsa is doing doesn't surprise me, because i'm not a terrorist and it doesn't bother me. also it doesn't surprise me because i'm an american. after the gateway legislation called the patriot act, as an american i think anyone living in this country isn't any expectation of privacy and personal security, isn't that really a moot point, the whole discussion about having any kind of privacy? >> i want to bring in walter, actually, to ask your question as well, they go hand in hand. pass the microphone, if you would. you're a 9/11 first responder, say what you want to say? >> well, basically, ron paul or the president would utilize the information collected to prevent another 9/11, or what would he use in place of it?

>> this seems to me -- >> i think technology matters a lot here. when i started as an assistant u.s. attorney in the '90s, it was a big deal to get a wiretap on a phone which was a thing that hung on the wall, it was black usually. and i remember i was involved in one of the first wiretaps of a fax machine, now we're in a world where people throw away phones daily. and change phone numbers. the technology is so much more sophisticated than it used to be and the bad guys know this too. earlier you were saying, everyone knows -- the terrorists know they're being tapped. yes, that may be, but they also need technology, they can't do what they do without using phones and pagers. >> it's important to point out what this program really is. it sounds -- it's overhyped, it sounds as if they're list thing to our conversations. all they're really doing is getting our phone bills. this is an aggregate of our phone bills without our names

on. they are detecting the pattern of phone calls, and then we get the warrants to go after the individuals to listen. >> let me say -- >> it's so overhyped. >> is that all that's going on here? there is a huge amount of data being collated and we have to trust the government. most people don't really trust the government over treating this kind of thing a sensitivity as ari would have us believe. >> i don't think we should trust the government. the framers founded the government on distrust of government. we have a rule of law, we have a congress that approved the patriot act, we have a judiciary in the court, and we need to revise that. i think we need an adverse representative arguing the other side, rather than an ex parte one sided presentation. senator widen and udall have proposed reforms i support. i represent a company that allows people with smart phones to be sure they can encrypt their messages and conversations. we are a rule of law, the rule

of law requires this man to be prosecuted. if mr. paul wants to run for president or persuade his colleagues in congress to change the law, he did run for president and he lost and he's unsuccessful in persuading his colleagues. that's a democracy, and he's just not winning the argument, democracy is what mr. snowden turned his back on when he did what he decided to do unilaterally, being judge and jury. rather than changing his politicians or changing the policies through democracy, rather than through leaks. >> thank you all very much for joining me. when we come back, three people who were government whistle-blowers themselves and more questions from my studio audience. join us at projectluna.com

three people who were whistle blowers themselves, join me now. welcome to you all. let me start with you, thomas drake, if i may, you've been exactly where edward snowden has been, worked at the nsa, and you blew whistles why did you do it, and what do you make of the parallels in this case now. >> they're just 12 years ago, very similar.

let me be crystal clear, the government cannot handle the truth. i was at the very nation beginning of the secret surveillance state. the government is lying. they actually violated the constitution willfully and deliberately in the greatest of secrecy ostensibly for the sake of national security. in democracy we cannot have any room for secret laws that are controlled and manipulated and interpreted by the executive. the public has the right to know what the government limits are in terms of its own surveillance. they also have the absolute right to know what those safeguards are to protect individual privacy. in a surveillance state, we simply create more suspect individuals. >> the problem as you've heard from many of my eminent

contributors tonight, people believe this kind of stuff has to remain secret, it's almost as if it's protected by the three pillars of state as it currently is. including courts. it has to be secret to prevent the enemy knowing what is going on. what do you say to that? >> i think that's a red herring, it's nonsense. they don't know how successful we are at any of these operations. that's the real key. plus, the government could have been detecting terrorists from the very beginning without violating anybody's privacy rights. i left that technology with nsa when i got out of there, because they were violating the rights of everyone in the country. and they threw them away, they did that principally because it was clear to me the intent from the beginning was to assemble information about the u.s. citizens so they could have leverage against them.

for example -- what tells that to me is the ceo of qwest, when he refused to give his caller data of his customers, that meant everyone in the country that was part of qwest, that was all u.s. citizens, basically, they cut off any contracts with him and eventually went after him and put him in jail. >> okay, let me turn to jocelyn braddock. you're a lawyer. here's what's really hit home to me. he's run off to hong kong, now run by the chinese again. what's to stop the chinese getting hold of all his information now? he's extremely valuable to them. then you're handing the great emerging superpower, a great rival to america, all all these state secrets. how does that serve the american public interest? >> well, there's been no accusation at all that he's handing any kind of information to china. he was quite clear -- >> no, he's in china. >> i know he is in hong kong. he's actually already left, i think. >> but what's to stop the

chinese doing that if they so wish if they get a hold of him first? >> that's an interesting question, but i think it side-steps a real issue, which is that he showed that the united states was violating multiple laws in both the patriot act and the foreign intelligence surveillance act. >> which law are they violating? because this is being denied. tell me. >> the patriot act, section 215 is being violated, as is the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the piece of paper that we saw that was supposedly a lawful order was not, because the court is not allowed to rule on domestic-to-domestic surveillance. so, while your earlier guests are talking about, why shouldn't we be allowed to surveil foreign terrorists? no one has a problem with that. we're allowed to do that. the problem is, why is the government spying on its own people without any probable cause, without any reasonable cause, without any suspicion

whatsoever, on completely innocent people? that violates the 4th amendment of the constitution and two major laws on the books, and even the laws on the books, there's a secret interpretation of those. >> okay. let's take a short break. we're going to come back with a bit more of this. back with me now are three we chip away. making the colors of earth and sunset skies into rich interior accents. or putting the beauty of a forest in the palm of your hands... it will take you to another place... wherever you happen to be. 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 laredo 4x4 for $359 a month.

peoi go to angie's listt for to gauge whether or not the projects will be done in a timely fashion and within budget. angie's list members can tell you which provider is the best in town. you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare. now that we're expecting, i like the fact that i can go onto angie's list and look for pediatricians. the service providers that i've found on angie's list actually have blown me away. join today and find out why over 1 million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses,

i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. back with me now are three you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan

might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. ...and we inspected his brakes for free.

-free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke. back with me now are three people who are whistleblowers themselves, thomas drake, bill binney and jocelyn braddock. thomas drake, all ten charges against you, i believe, were dropped in the end, which sets an interesting precedent, what may or may not happen to edward snowden. i suppose the key question i keep coming back to is this, is if you listen to edward snowden, he keeps saying that he had virtually unlimited powers to wiretap, to read e-mails and so on. that has been categorically denied right to the top of government. what is the truth? i mean, is he just a collection of meta data, like they claim, or can the people at the sharp end, and there are 1.4 million americans currently working intelligence in some way who have that kind of access -- can they read e-mails, listen to phone calls, et cetera?

>> yes, they can. one of the elephants in the room. the reality is that much of the surveillance state has been outsourced to companies, and it's become a profit center for them. and so, many of what were traditionally government functions only have now -- are now being done by contractors in some of the most sensitive positions. >> well, listen, this has been a fascinating debate. we've got to leave it there. we could talk all night about it because i'm still raveling through it, i think like most people watching are now, too. both sides have good arguments and we just need some transparency, which now we appear to be getting. to thomas drake, bill binney and jocelyn brannock, and to our studio audience, thank you very much, indeed. anderson cooper will be with you in a few moments.

we have new reporting that might shed light on how quickly authorities knew about that massive intelligence leak. they may have been on to edward snowden before newspapers published the revelations. also tonight, what the man behind wikileaks says about the affair. julian assange is speaking out on the program. and later, a woman describes the terror. a gunman opens fire and jumps in her car and says "drive" and continues to shoot to others from the vehicle. her close encounter what he said on friday and what he did on his way to the next and final killing ground.