to it. a little sport he at cnn is just what we need. we appreciate it. good luck with the new show. 10:30 p.m. eastern. >> thank you so much. remember, you can always follow us on twitter, tweet me avmt wolfblitzer. thanks for much whatting. have a great weekend. "crossfire" starts right now. tonight on "crossfire", annoying our friends by trying to find our enemies. >> trust needs to be rebuilt. >> everyone spies on everybody. that's just a fact. on the left, stephanie cutter. on the right, s.e.cupp. national security or too much snooping? tonight on "crossfire."

the first rule of spy club is don't get caught. i agree with senator marco rubio, who is comparing the outrage to a famous line from "casablanca." >> i think a lot of what you're seeing from these european leaders is for the domestic consumption of their own public, but at the end of the day, everyone knew there was gambling going on in "casablanca." >> but this is something new. combined with other civil liberty abuses from president obama's past, i think this administration has a lot of explaining to do. >> >> well, the program we were just referring to, spying of merkel and others, is a program that was dated back to 2006. so whether it's expanded is an opening question, and i think the president's answer that it's actually not happening anymore, we're not spying on angela merkel, but listen, spying has

gone on for a very long time. >> yes. >> i don't think you can say it's been an expansion or that we're treading new ground. i think the only difference here is we have someone who is leaking sensitive documents. >> we just know about it i want we know about it, unfortunately. so in the crossfire tonight, tommy vitore, and jess lynn raddic, just back from moscow where she rifted edward snowden. we'll start with you. i understand what whistle-blowers do, and i support that, but normally it's to protect american interests, american well-being and security. leaking sensitive documents to show who the united states is spying on, in terms of foreign leaders, what purpose does that have? how does that strengthen america to tell germany or france or any other country that we're spying on them, especially when we know they are spying on us. >> well, i think most of snowden's disclosures have dealt with domestic to domestic spying in this country. it's only recently we learned

about spying on other leaders. while we have always spied on other countries, not on the personal cell phones. >> how do you know that? >> through a number of other clients who are with the cia and in the intelligence communities, and i mean, obviously if someone got the cell phone number of barack obama or his children, they would probably be prosecuted. in terms of why is this a problem? or how does it help americans? i would say it helps americans, because it is not fighting terrorism. it actually weakens our position in the war on terrorism, because we rely on our allies in the war on terrorism. when we can't -- when we weaken that trust by actually tapping their personal cell phones, it's a problem. >> having worked in the white house, there are areas where you can't take your cell phone, because it puts sensitive conversations at risk. the sit room, the oval office, the chief of staff's office, you

don't take your cell phone in, because it means people can listen in on the conversation. there's also an assumption that the president is being listened in on. are you suggesting that america should unilaterally disarm here? it's happening to us, and us -- spying on whether it's our enemies or our allies is something that's gone on for centuries i want i agree, spying has gone on for century, but friend and foe. i agree. but certainly noted breadth of spying on 35 world leaders -- >> we should u.n. latry disarm them? >> i'm not saying we should we should not be spying on personal crennel phone devices -- it's okay to spy on their embassies and intel, we expect that. >> let me ask you about this, tommy. i'm onic with eavesdropping overseas, and i think most americans are, too. we understand that this is sort of -- but do we have the wrong

targets? is the german chancellor a threat? or is she going to reveal any threats? >> well, i mean, i think one quick point. the first trip i took with president obama, we went to france. we weren't allowed that take or phones off the plane, because the french did so much collection of them. when they were protesting so much these accusations, you take it with a grain of salt. i think that a lot of intelligence collection is counter-terrorism work, but not all of it. let's sea we are involved in negotiation over a trade deal. angela merkel is upset, because there's a special and unique history with intelligence and intrigue, and i completely understand that. it is, however, the case that the german intel services collaborate with us on work, and they probably know we have collection on people in their country. >> how does it help now that you have leaders like standpoint

hollande and chancellor merkel publicly decrying this, saying there's been a breach of truth. we want them to work on any number of issues, the fact is they are publicly complaining. that could be helpful. >> i'm amazed by the disconcerting naivete. that's the head of the french domestic intelligence service. so they know what we're doing. we're better at this than them, and they are frustrated by it. i understand that. now, we need to collaborate, sort of carve off the issues that we need to work together. i understand they'll be upset, by like stephanie said, this has gone on a long time. >> and jesse democratic lyn, weigh in here, do you think it's protecting their politics at home? the united states was spying.

they're embarrassed at home? >> i think the u.s. is more embarrassed at this point, given the reaction of obama initially denying this, then the next say saying -- having the white house say we can't say yes or not. >> and also saying we'll investigate it. isn't say "we'll investigate it" some kind of admission that there's something to look into and maybe correct? >> the president also said it was not -- but it could have been happening yesterday. not happening today, it very well could have been happening yesterday. >> hollande has not been in office. he's relatively new. >> president obama asked our enemies, ander remember this, to unclench their fists. in return we rewarded them with drone strikes, and we're now at fist i cuffs with our allies. is this soft power?

is it working? >> i think the clenched fists line was specification to iran in particular. we've been at loggerheads over their nuclear program for a long time. i think that's a good thing. i'm very hope of that we can get to an graeme. >> that's a whole other "crossfire"ivities i forget the other part of the question, because i got led down this path. barack obama came into an office at the time when the iraq war had destroyed our credibility around the globe. he and hillary clinton spent a lot of time trying to fix that and improve the way america was seen. you say this in asia where -- he's improved that image dramatically, a -- >> but it's so incoherent. he's ening wars, but in favor of drone strikes, ended rendition and torture, but in favor of extra- -- he wants transparency, but prosecuted whistle-blowers. would you be defending this

under bush? >> i didn't work for bush for a reason. obama said he would refocus on al qaeda, and he has -- >> so that makes all of it okay? he also said he was going to protect this country and he was going to be the response commander in chief. that's what he's done. i want to switch topics for a second. >> no, wait a second. i wanted to respond to that. barack obama came into office praising whistle-blowers as patriotic and brave and necessary to keep our democratic society. on the right track. 234 favor of openness and transparency, and his actions have been quite the opposite by having this war on whistle-blowers, nine people prosecuted for telling the truth. prosecuted under the espionage act, being enemies of the state. >> the kiddy porn analyst that coughed up there was an ied in yemen that we've been working

on, i'm very glad that individual will go -- >> i don't know who you're talking about. >> the yemeni -- >> of course there are -- >> there are benefits to surveillance, of course, but the argument we're trying to have here, the philosophical argument, at the expense of what civil liberties itches it's a balance, absolutely. >> let's talk about whistle-blowers for a second. i want to bring up the most famous whistle-blower we're dealing with right now, and that's edward snowden. you just got back from a trip to russia whether you met with edward snowden. let's listen to what former secretary of state albright said about him just yesterday. >> glorifying snowden is a mistake. i think that what he has done is a criminal act, and it has hurt us very, very badly. >> so whistle blowing serves a purpose. i understand that. i supported you when you were a whistle-blower. however, what snowden has done

is take very, very sensitive information about programs, with the intent of protecting the american people. now, we can talk about what balance you have to strike, and he took them to foreign sources. he gave them to foreign governments. he put america at risk. so in terms of -- the world knows exactly what our programs are now. we also know that some of our enemies, al qaeda and others, have changed some of their tactics because they now know what they're doing. >> i don't know about that. >> there's lots of information out there. my question for you is this -- if you want to be a responsible whistle-blower, if you want to actually effect change, isn't there a way to do it when you're not putting america at risk? you did it the right way. you went to an american source. >> i think in edward's case, first of all, i disagree that he harmed america. we had that about bradley manning, the government said

that, and america produced no harm report during the trial whatsoever, no damage assessment. whistle-blowers are always accused, including tom drake, of harming national security. he was another in the meantime sa whistle-blower. normally you go through channels, which is exactly what another client of my, thomas drake did. he went to his boss, went to the n system a general counsel, the defense department inspector general, and both -- and both intel committees in congress. >> >> snowden didn't do that. >> because he studied the case of tom drake and realized -- in tom drake's case, not only did it achieve nothing, but the government turned around and prosecuted him for espionage in a case that collapsed in spectacular fashion, because his allegations were substantiated and because he never retained -- >> so why not go to rand paul, who is a critic of this program, long been a critic of the administration's policies, or

ron wyden who's been trying to change this policy? there was a responsible way to do this. he didn't do that. >> he didn't do that, because, for example -- >> he ran to -- >> i think he did the only thing he could conceivably could have done. he would have been put in jail -- >> that's the consequence. >> if you feel that strongly about it. >> let me answer stephanie's question first, in terms of going to ron wyden, we did go to ron wyden with other whistle-blowers, it accomplished nothing. and snowden knew he would be targeted rather than going after nsa with illegalities for which no one wants to pay the price. i want everybody to take a minute and remember something. we're forgetting about something important in this debate, and that's the purpose of the programs. the number of terror attacks we've actually prevented, next. when we made our commitment to the gulf, bp had two big goals:

help the gulf recover and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. the recent increase in cafeteria prices is not cool. when you vote for flo, we'll have discounts. ice-cream discounts. multi-cookie discounts. pizza loyalty discounts! [ kids chanting "flo!" ] i also have some great ideas on car insurance. [ silence ] finding you discounts since back in the day. call or click today. i like her.

in the crossfire tonight tommy vietor and jesselyn rad a. ck. here's the real truth. this program has prevented terrorist attacks. let's listen to what general keith alexander says about this program. >> in recent years, these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the u.s. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe, to including helping

prevent a terrorist -- the potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11. >> so, that includes about 13 times on domestic soil. senator feinstein, who is the chair of the senate intelligence committee, had presented an op-ed last week in "wall street journal," where she said -- and she was citing testimony from the fbi director and others, that if these programs had not been in place, we could have likely been aware of the domestic plot for 9/11 and prevented it -- so my question to you is -- isn't there a purpose for these programs, in terms of protecting american lives? is there a purpose? >> if they were actually protecting american lives, there would be, but that could le -- from june. later he was recently grilled by leahy in october, and said that there was only one plot that was

detected, involving a man sending a thousand dollars to some charity. so that is one. for $8,000 -- >> a charity that actually attacked the kenyan mall. >> but 54 is very different from one. that's a big line -- >> are you suggesting that senator feinstein lied last week when she printed the op-said that cited the 54? >> yes, i think she's misleading. >> the head of the nsa -- >> yes, he admitted lying, gave the least untruthful answer and then wrote a letter of apology saying i thought i was answering a different question. i do think people have been -- >> okay. let's talk about -- so the intelligence community is lying to the american people. that being said, president and congress are trying to make reforms. in late august, the senate intelligence commit company is considers serious reforms next

week, so is the house. the report was supposed to be out -- to increase transparency, to put some constraints on certain sections of the law to make the -- which is the body that approves the secret surveillances more transparent for the american people. if reforms are put in place, is this something that you would support? >> absolutely. i support reforms, i think edward snowden does, too. for tomorrow there's a rally, for tens of thousands, against mass surveillance, by ramey wrightman. so, i mean there are -- i'm completely in favor of reform, as long as it's meaningful. >> let's talk about public opinion. i want to show you a poll, an absence/"the washington post" poll. it asks, does it or does it not intrude. 74% say it does intrude.

now, frankly when it comes to national security, i don't care what the american public thinks. i really don't. i think this is something for experts to sort of mete out. should we care? should the president care that the american population feels like this is an intrusion? >> he does care. i talked to him about this. i think that's why you've seen him take action. >> we all now how aggressive commissions are. >> i think he's taken a number of steps to find the right balance. >> does it seem like he takes step when

. >> of course, public disclosure, programs has led to more public debate. i think it's self-evident, but i think his's someone behind the scenes has been reforming these programs, and procedures, and the law. >> i've heard nothing about the those reforms. >> he tried to say these reforms are already underway and there has been no evidence of that. and to say that he cares about these activities, he expanded the secrecy regime put in place by bush and he expanded it by an order of magnitude will while he says he is putting reform in place, to create a commission that you put tunneled dni. that's not meaningful reform. >> i've got to bring up some recent revelations. because they are awesome. a couple interesting stories. one, a high level white house aide was fired after anonymously

criticizing through tweets from benghazi to susan rice's clothing choices. general heyden was leaking to a report beblack cites. that's why i take quiet car. and of course edward snowden seems to have an endless cache of information about what the nsa is up to. i ask you this, can anyone keep a secret him? >> no. that was my experience. it drove me insane. i was there when we had the first meeting with "the new york times" who brought us the wikileaks cache. and said we're about to unload these 150,000 documents. the speed with which information can be saved and moved and transferred has made this next to impossible. and i think the problem i had with edward snowden, i think there is a meaningful debate we should have constantly about domestic surveillance. i think when you go to china and you start talking about the way we collect on the chinese. when you talk about how we collect on a russian head of

state. i have a very hard time accepting a description of that as whistle blowing or in the national interests. or an appropriate thing to do. i think it is against the law. >> getting back to your original question, can we keep secrets? i think certain things should be secret. troop movements, nuclear design. >> unfortunately we didn't do that with edward snowden. those things are largely being kept secret. we have so much secretsy, massive overclassification that even president obama has recognized. he ended up classifying 77 million documents in his first year than bush had in seven. so i think having too many secrets, and having overclassification is a problem. >> stay here. next we cease fire. is there anything the two of us or even the four of us can agree on. we want you at home to weigh in.

do you care if the u.s. spies on other countries? tweet yes or no using hash tag crossfire. i'm on expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for, because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you.

at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your future? we'll help you get there.

we're back. let's call a cease fire. i think you guys agreed that secrecy is a problem. and we need some reforms to do something about it. but i also think the four of us just stumbled on to a little known fact we all have boston

roots and are therefore watching very excitedly this world series. >> yes. and i think you made everyone watching at home hate us all. >> or love us. >> and where the raigts might fall in certain states. >> you're from boston, you're a red sox fan. >> i am from boston and through this series, i am a red sox fan. and what do we think? in five? >> i can't predict. it will jinx them. >> she wants it to be in six because she has tickets to game six. >> i would be very happy if it were in five but i will be there in person for game six. >> they tend to make it a nail biter so i think you'll get to ethe sixth game. thank you both. to go facebook or twitter to weigh in on our fireback question. do you care if the u.s. spies on other countries? right now 40% of you say yes. 60% of you say no.

the debate continues online at cnn.com/crossfire. >> join us monday for another edition of "crossfire." erin burnett outfront starts right now. outfront, the unsolved murder of jonbenet ramsey. >> in every case parents are suspected initially. >> four pages of grand jury testimony released. does it reveal her killer? we'll ask the ramseys' lawyer. >> plus, slashing the military budget. >> 1on100,000 professional jobs. >> but there is a better way. and prescription for murder? >> probably had sex half the time. sometimes it was just lunch. >> the mistress and the murder trial of a utah doctor takes the stand. let's go "outfront."