wolf, he made the point, and i think he's right, that for intelligence to be effective, it has to have the trust of the american people. the american people cannot believe they're being spied on willy-nilly for no particular reason. and i think a concern of this administration has been not just in the wake of snowed, but before, with the controversy over drones. they need to demystify to a certain degree just exactly what we are doing. so what struck me today about what the president said is, we're going to keep this court, okay, but eventually we're going to declassify some of those opinions that they offer, so you lift the veil a little bit. so the american people can see just how they deliberate. what was interesting to me was he didn't suggest that you ought to change the way this court is appointed. right now the chief justice appoints members of that court. he -- he's going to leave that up to congress. if congress wants to change that. also, he didn't say what we would do with all of this large quantity of data that we

collect. he's also sort of punting that over to the congress. but overall, i think what he was trying to do today was say to the american people, look, we're not just willy-nilly spying and snooping on you. we have reasons to do this. but i'm hearing you that you want to understand more about just why we're doing what we're doing. >> spider marx, retired u.s. army, did he convince you? >> he convinced me there needs to be some changes involved in the program. and as we have discussed, would any of this happened without snowden? i would argue, i don't know that the jury has come down hard on that completely and said without snowden we wouldn't be doing any of this. the intelligence community as a matter of routine does internal reviews in terms of how they conduct operations, and this is sufficient oversight. the real issue that gloria made, it is not as transparent as maybe we would like it to be. and there are elements of that that we need kind of exposed to daylight. the declassification of

intelligence, we do as a matter of routine. we're doing that with findings, opinions. i think two things the president -- >> you don't think that edward snowden's leaking all this sensitive information six months ago propelled this debate, generated this debate, and as a result of this enormous debate that's been going on here in the united states and around the world, the president of the united states has now come forward with a series of reforms. >> the president took ownership of this issue because of the snowden leaks. what i'm suggesting is that absent snowden, there are routine mechanisms in place that are routinely used by our intelligence community to evaluate themselves and to improve their posture in terms of how they do business. >> but don't you think the president was already thinking about this, because he was getting a lot of grief from his laughed-about drones, and that when he gave a speech to the national defense last may, that is clearly something he was thinking about. i think snowden added a

different level. >> it was a double punch. drone, snowden, i've got to embrace this. >> i don't think i can imagine this speech today, the need for this speech, the intelligence reform panel, the urgency. the turning of what would normally be an internal review into a very external review, shown to the country and to the world without edward snowden. >> hold on for a second. we have senator rand paul, republican of kentucky. potential republican presidential candidate, joining us right now. he's been a sharp critic of the administration's nsa surveillance program. so what did you think, senator? were you pleased, not so pleased? >>el with, what i think i heard was that if you like your privacy, you can keep it. but in the meantime, we're going to keep collecting your phone records, your e-mails, your text messages, and likely your credit card information. so i didn't hear any lessening of the spying on americans or collecting records of americans. i heard that trust me, i'm going put some more safeguards in place, but i'm going to keep right on collecting every

american's records. this is something that is going to have to be decided by the supreme court. i think there is a real fundamental question whether one general warrant can apply to millions of people's records. and i think it's incorrectly being done, and the supreme court is going to ultimately have to decide on this. >> you filed a lawsuit, to remind our viewers, what is so irritating, upsetting to you? >> well, the thing is that, you know, he mentioned paul revere. but paul revere was warning us of the british coming. he wasn't warning us that the americans are coming. you know, the thing is that the lesson for the american revolution that the president i think misunderstands is that we were upset about british soldiers writing their own general warrants, like national security letters that, allowed hem to go into the colonials' house and look at their papers. we didn't like that so we wrote the fourth amendment to say warrants have to be individualized, they have to name the person and the place. we didn't want a dragnet, where everybody's information was

held, whether it's held by the government or a private entity. i'm not so sure i'm more or less concerned by having a private entity. who are we going to hire? eric snowden's contractor to hold all the information? i don't want them collecting the information. it's not about who holds it. i don't want them collecting every american's information. you know, he mentioned 9/11. the thing about 9/11 is, we didn't do the appropriate things, because we didn't do good police work and we never even asked for a warrant. an fbi agent in minnesota sent 70 letters to superiors asking, can we get a warrant on this guy who wants to take off planes but not land them. and they didn't do the appropriate thing, they never asked for a warrant, which they could have gotten. we don't need all this extra collection of information. >> here's a hypothetical, and we'll get to your analysis of potentially what it means, and obviously there were a lot of mistakes leading up to 9/11. what they're trying to do is learn from those mistakes to make sure there isn't another 9/11. let's say the u.s. intelligence community learns that there is a

terrorist in yemen or somalia or afghanistan or someplace in a sensitive area. they have the cell phone, they're monitoring that individual cell phone. that individual makes a call to someone in louisville, kentucky, in your home state. what's wrong with the nsa then getting a court order from the fisa court, foreign intelligence surveillance court, and trying to find out what that phone conversation between somalia and yemen, that terrorist suspect there, and someone in louisville? >> i have no objection to having a warrant for a specific person to look at phone calls. and if we then get a warrant, we find out the person in louisville is connected to the person in yemen, then we get a warrant for all of their phone calls. if they called 100 people last month, we look at those 100 and ask the judge for another warrant. i don't care if it's ten hops out with a warrant. but for the president to say we're only going to abuse the fourth amendment twice and not get warrants by hopping twice, but three times, it's either proper or improper and there is

a proper way of doing this, and this is with a judicial warrant, individualized to the person and you can look at their friends with another warrant. we do this all of the time. at 4:00 a.m. if there is a potential murder or rapist, we call a judge and get a warrant. but we separate the police power from the judicial power and we have to reassess whether or not police officers or fbi agents should write their own warrants. only judges should write warrants. >> at one point in the speech, and the president spoke for 45 minutes, senator, he made this point. let me play this little clip. >> after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, i believed a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open-ended war footing that we have maintained since 9/11. and for these reasons, i indicated in a speech at the national defense university last may, we needed a more robust,

public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. of course, what i did not know at the time was that within weeks of my speech, an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversies at home and abroad that have continued to this day. >> he then went on to mention edward snowden specifically. given the fact of an open investigation, i'm not going to dwell on mr. snowden's actions or motivations. where does edward snowden, from your perspective, fit into this current debate and these proposed reforms the president put forward today? >> you know, i think it leads to whether or not you think the president is genuinely concerned or not. i don't think we would be here, and i think there would be absolutely no reform, had there not been the releases by snowden. it's a separate question, what to do with him and whether he broke the law, which i think he did, and how he should be punished. the thing is, we wouldn't have any of this information and we wouldn't have any discussion. but what i think the president misunderstands is, he thinks

when there is a problem and there may be a potential for abusive problems, i'll get some lawyers together that all work for him, and then they'll review it and put more safeguards on it. the nsa cannot oversee themselves. the administration or executive branch can't oversee themselves. that's why we separate these powers. but we separated the police power from the judiciary power. so we can't have internal lawyers kind of looking at this and saying, oh, let's try to make sure everybody's privacy is taken care. see, really, he's not going to fundamentally change any of this. many of us think it's an invasion of our privacy to have our text messages collected, our e-mails collected, our phone records collected, and likely our credit card statements collected. we think that's an invasion of privacy, simply the collection, unless you get a warrant from a judge for a specific person that there is probable cause to think they have committed a crime. that's the way our country was set up. and so what he's talking about is a different kind of country than our founding fathers

envisioned. >> he did say at one point that even though there's -- should be a healthy skepticism, he found no evidence that there has been any abuse by anyone at the nsa, as far as the personal privacy records of the american -- of american citizens. you heard him say that. >> you know, i think that if you look back to the record, though, the fisa court actually has reviewed the nsa on several occasions and said that they were doing things they shouldn't be doing. but i have a fundamental problem with the fisa court. it's in secret. and so you can't discuss and determine the extent of the fourth amendment or the extent or circum speck shun of the constitution in secret. it has to be done in public. one of the reforms that i have proposed and i have legislation that would do this, would say that if you're given a fisa court order and you want to challenge the constitutionality of it, it should go to an appellate court and to the supreme court. right now it's a dead end and the fisa court, a secret court in a secret judge, without

adversarial -- without arguments on both sides, only the government argues in fisa. that's not the way you can determine what is and what is not constitutional. >> if they add a public advocate to that fisa court system, is that going to satisfy you? >> it's better. and my reform that i'm doing with senator wyden does have a public advocate in there. but ultimately, i think what legal scholars will tell you is that to find truth, we have this adversarial process where someone actually literally works for you on the government side of the question and it goes back and forth and it's our way of trying to find truth in our courts. and i don't think you can truly find it if the public advocate still works for the government. you know, we have an irs advocate right now, and i haven't seen hide nor hair of our irs advocate during these scandals when they were investigating tea party groups. so i don't think it works, necessarily, if they're appointed by the government to truly have an adversarial

process. they have to be hired by someone who thinks that they're being injured by the government. >> senator, give the president a grade for his speech today. a being excellent, f failure. >> you know, i always give him an a for effort. i like the president. i like what he says so much. i mean, if you looked at the gist of what he is saying, he is saying all of the right things. i can really -- i want to stand up and cheer, until i realize what he just told me was all these great things about my privacy, except for he really, between the lines told me he's going to continue to collect all of my private records without a warrant. so he says the right thing. i think his heart really is in the right place. and i think his motives are not bad. neither do i think james clapper's motives are bad. i think they want to protect the country, but i don't think there is enough of a healthy respect for the fourth amendment. and we -- government needs to be -- there needs to be a limitation to government power. and i see this as virtually unlimited power to look at our records. and it really needs to be reined in. >> so the grade would be?

>> well, a for effort and probably c for content. >> senator paul, thanks very much for coming in, giving us your immediate reaction to the president's speech. we appreciate it, as always. >> thank you, wolf. we're going to have a lot more, a lot more analysis of what we just heard from the president, what it means, what it means as far as potential avoiding another 9/11. the president repeatedly referred to 9/11 in this 45-minute address. jeffrey toobin, ashleigh banfield, a lot of our experts are standing by. we'll be right back.

major speech by the president, speaking at the justice department, wrapping up a few moments ago. jim acosta is our senior white house correspondent, getting some serious abbreviation by other national security officials over at the white house. where do we go from here when the president saying he has a new idea to not let the nsa store it, not let the private companies store it. who is going to store it? he's got this two-month deadline between now and march 28th when the current law expires to come up with some formula. >> right. and that's why i would characterize this next stage, wolf, as fill in the blanks. because at this point, the administration does not have the answers to fill in those blanks. you mentioned the question of where to store this metadata, if not at the nsa, then where? a senior administration official

on a phone call with reporters before the speech, the information was embargoed before the president delivered it, said, by the way, this cannot be implemented at the flip of a switch. they cannot all of a sudden move this to a separate location. they have to begin this process now of consulting with the intelligence communities, consulting with the carriers, consulting with lawmakers as to where to put that data. the other issue of the privacy advocate, that this is going to be a panel of privacy advocates on the surveillance court. senior administration official said, these are nonexisting panels to the court. so at this point, they are recognizing full well wolf, they know these are things that have not been done before, and they're going to take some time to implement. so when we hear the president say, you know, he's announcing all of these changes today, keep in mind, it's going to take some time to implement those changes. and wolf, the other thing that stood out in the speech is that the president did directly address former nsa contractor edward snowden. did get into the details -- didn't get into the details,

didn't tip his hand one way or another whether mr. snowden should be granted leniency, but did say for all practical intents and purposes, it is not possible to have employees of your national security apparatus leaking information and just getting away with it. and here's some of what the president had to say earlier. given the fact of an open investigation, i will say that our nation's defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation's secrets. if any individual obtains to take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy. >> so there you have the president talking about edward snowden, wolf. and one thing that, you know, sort of related to edward snowden is this -- one of the revelations he produced, the fact the united states has been doing a lot of surveillance on

foreign leaders. one thing that was mentioned in that conference call with reporters, senior administration official characterized the quantity of those leaders that they will not be surrender veiling anymore, as, quote, dozens. and so they're talking about dozens of foreign leaders they're no longer going to be doing this type of surveillance on. at the same time, we should also mention that john depodesta, recent hire at the white house, veteran of the clinton administration, but brought on as top adviser, will be conducting review of management of surveillance data, and that is something that is going to be going on here, as well. so i would characterize these next several weeks and maybe months, wolf, as a fill blanks period. they don't have the answers yet. >> a lot of questions raised as well when the president says the u.s. is going to stop spying on the personal phone conversations of foreign leaders. there is a huge caveat there, when he did say, and i have it right in front of me. he said, unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the

communications of heads of state government, of our close friends and allies. so -- >> that's right. >> first caveat, what is the compelling national security purpose, and who are america's close friends and allies? we have viewers watching us right now here in the united states and around the world who want to fill in the blank on that sensitive point, as well. which country has a leader who is described as a close friend and ally of the united states, and which countries do not. i suspect we'll be getting more on that in the days to come, as well. stand by for a moment. ashleigh banfield is watching all of this, together with jeffrey toobin in new york. there are going to be a lot of legal questions, ashleigh, coming up right now, especially going forward with these new reforms. >> yeah, and i think jim just touched on that beautifully. i think the next, you know, few months are going to be pretty significant in how much more we're going to have added to this 45-minute speech. the president started with the work has just begun. jeffrey toobin and i discussing this throughout the speech.

two big things we're waiting to hear, not sure we were satisfied on this. number one, just how much of this material might end up before the fisa court. where will this meta data ultimately be stored and number two, how adversarial is this fisa court going to be? this panel of ombudsmen. will they get to argue or be part of that office where you send your complaint? >> here is an interesting situation, because when an ordinary prosecutor -- when i was an assistant u.s. attorney and wanted a search warrant, i would just go to a magistrate and say, here's the affidavit, we want to search this house. what the president seemed to be suggesting is that the fisa court could become more of an adversarial process, where the government, the nsa, through department of justice, would say, we want to look at this data, and there would be some privacy participant, some committee, some lawyers, and

what that role would be, and at what stage in the process is very important. also, what information would they have access to? are you saying they're government lawyers, outside haurs? >> he did say they were outside the government. so there's step one. at least that's -- as senator paul outlined, that's critical. these are outside the government. but if they're outside -- if they're outside the government, do they have access to all the information in this super-secret court? and if that's true, that would be an enormous change. and so i think that's something very much to keep an eye on. whether it becomes a true adversary process in terms of whether the pfizfisa -- in term what the fisa court decides. are they really going to be here from two informed sides. >> and if they get to actually argue and be part of the ultimate process. i'm always, always brought back to 1755 and ben franklin's comments, and they're always parsed differently and requoted differently, but the best i can

come up with to the pennsylvania assembly, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase safety deserve neither liberty or safety. and ben franklin never walked around with one of those what i call mobile life devices. everything now is digital. everything has changed. our adversaries now have things we need to keep up with. keeping up with the joneses. and the president alluded to that. in doing that, he spoke in very broad strokes. and i feel like we don't have the answers as to how much of this new process will be overseen by the courts. >> and the big question, which jim just referred to, and i thought rand paul had a very interesting perspective on this, is, okay, the metadata will no longer be at the nsa. it will be somewhere else. where? how? and one of the things i thought senator paul made -- point he made, if you put it somewhere else, then it could be just as insecure there and you have a whole new set -- is this part of the government, a private contractor? so the idea of keeping it away

from the nsa may sound good. but you could create a whole new set of problems. >> how secure is the new vault. >> now, the committee suggested, the outside committee that the president appointed, said just leave it with the companies. >> they don't want it. >> well, they don't want it. and also it's not clear how easy it would be to get there. so that's a real open question heading forward. >> and for the audience -- this is pretty arcane stuff. and when they talk about the national security letters, is that sort of a fancy term for, it's a subpoena without a judge. effectively, it's a subpoena, i just get to write, send and receive. what, effectively, did the president say about the national security letters, and just how much more strict they're going to become, if anything? >> right. we're going to try to do fewer, he said. and also we're going to put time limits on them. you know, we will get access for a certain defined period of time. but again, subpoenas are not an adversarial process in normal circumstances. again, when i was a prosecutor, prosecutors every day, you want

a subpoena for barge records -- >> maybe of those things become public later. these, they just don't. fisa material just stays secret. and that's a big concern, as well. >> it is. but, you know, i think a lot of people expect things to be more public than they are. you know, the grand jury process, the government criminal investigation process is mostly conducted in secret now. and so the idea of bringing in an adversary process is very different. and so we'll see if the president -- and his team can come up with one. but let's not kid ourselves. that's not how the system works now. >> right. no, and i think a lot of people definitely understand their secrecy, but to hear what edward snowden says is the extent of it. wolf, effectively, while this is intriguing to listen to, great to hear the president take these steps, i think you could say there is somewhat baby steps, a lot more work to do. he said it, as i mentioned, a lot more work ahead. and a lot of that work, it will be interesting to find out how

much we find out about it. >> yeah. there's a lot of questions still that have to be answered. and i'm sure we'll get some answers, probably some of those questions we won't be getting. we won't be getting any answers to for national security considerations. all right, ashleigh, jeffrey, thanks very much. by the way, julian assange, founder of wikileaks is standing by to speak live to react to what the president has just said. there he is, right there. he's in london. we'll hear from julian assange and get a lot more analysis as our special coverage here on cnn continues. we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness if you qualify, and new car replacement, standard with our auto policies. so call liberty mutual at... today. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?

the bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the united states is not spying on ordinary people who don't threaten our national security. and we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. this applies to foreign leaders, as well. given the understandable attention that this issue has received, i've made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we

will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. and i've instructed my national security team, as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coordination and cooperation in ways that rebuild trust going forward. >> all right. so the president speaking to folks all over the world. a lot of them have been upset about u.s. surveillance of some foreign leaders, including friendly foreign leaders, like angela merkel, chancellor of germany. let's get some analysis. bob baer is an intelligence analyst, former case officer over at the cia. there is a huge out in that statement that the president said. you heard it. if there is a compelling reason to do so, the u.s. is going to go back and listen in on some of those conversations. >> oh, absolutely. if there is a political crisis anywhere in the world, we have to be able to turn the national security agency on it. go back to listening to phones. i think he was absolutely right. it's not worthwhile now

listening to german chancellor's phone and the rest of it. cut that out. let's don't waste our time. but we reserve the right to listen to anyone we want in foreign government. he's right. >> jim sciutto, give me a thought about where we go from here. >> i think clearly, this is not the end of the conversation. a lot of the questions have been left open. we have talked about where -- who holds this data. for how long and how long do they have to decide who holds the data? the public advocate that he's talking about says that -- this public advocate will take part in significant cases. what are the significant cases, who is going to define it, how often, apparently up to congress to decide. one thing we didn't hear a lot about is the effect on businesses. you and i have had some conversations about the billions of dollars lost for u.s. technology business as broad because of this, because there is concern their customers are going to be spied on. he didn't talk about encryption. when will the nsa break en krepgs? will they subvert software, key issues to u.s. technology companies around the world.

those are questions that still need to be answered and some are the most difficult questions. >> it's interesting, gloria. some of the harshest criticism is from liberal democrats who aren't happy about this entire program, and probably won't be very satisfied by what they heard today. >> liberal democrats and libertarian republicans, as you heard from rand paul earlier. look, i think what the president did today was, he raised all the questions. but he made it very clear, he didn't have a lot of the answers. i mean, for example, to jim's point about he wants the government to get out of the business of holding all of this information. but on the other hand, he is not quite sure where to put it. and so he is saying to the justice department, can you come up with some ideas about where -- about where to put it. he's not, you know -- he's suggesting some changes of the court. have an advocate on the other side. but he wants some different approaches. but it's clear, and it's clear he's done an extensive review here, that the answers are not

that obvious to him. what he did say is that technology is changing dramatically every second. and that this country has not kept up with the changes, and we have to figure out a way to keep up with the changes in technology, protect our citizens, and protect our privacy. and it just is not easy. >> very, very difficult, indeed. enormous challenge for the president of the united states. and we just saw a brief reflection of that during that 45-minute address. all right. i'll be back at the top of the hour. much more special coverage what's going on here in washington. the day's other news. cnn's "around the world" with suzanne malveaux. her special guest, juliana sang from london. we're anxious to get his reaction of what we just heard from the president.

welcome to "around the world," i'm suzanne malveaux. our special coverage continues on the new rules to protect your privacy from the vast spying powers of the federal government, without compromising national security. president obama just laying out his plan to reform the nsa's surveillance program. in a speech just a short time ago, the new safeguards include

putting lip putting limits on the controversial bulk collection of telephone records. also setting up a special public advocate to argue privacy rights cases inside a secret intelligence surveillance court. also, increasing privacy protections for people overseas. particularly heads of state. many are already arguing that these are not necessarily sweeping changes. but the president does hope that the reforms will help restore trust in u.s. spy practices at home and around the world. >> the directive makes clear that the united states only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes, and not for the purpose of indiscriminately reviewing the e-mails or phone calls of ordinary folks. i've also made it clear that the united states does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantaged people on the basis of their ethnicity or race or gender or sexual orientation

or religious beliefs. we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to u.s. companies. or u.s. commercial sectors. the bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the united states is not spying on ordinary people who don't threaten our national security. and we take their privacy concerns into account. >> the president's decision to reform the nsa's surveillance program is a direct result of the blockbuster leaks. by former government contractor, edward snowden. his revelations last year sparked concerns that the government had gone too far with his surveillance programs. now, snowden is in russia after receiving temporary asylum. he got it with the help of, of course, wikileaks. want to welcome founder, julian assange, a man who exposed volumes of secret government documents online years before the snowden leaks. he joins us from the ecuadorian

embassy in london where he has been held up for a year-and-a-half. i have to aask straight-up when you listen to the president's comments here, it is the first time we have seen at least some restrictions on the nsa since september 11th attacks. requirements for specific approval from the courts. more oversight from congress, specific presidential approval on spying on national leaders. you've given up your life to provide this platform to expose these secrets through your websi website. are you satisfied with what you have heard? >> well, look, i think it's embarrassing for a head of state to go on like that for 45 minutes and say almost nothing. unfortunately, one has to deconstruct a little of what is being said in the points that you have raised. first of all, let's look for some positive in what has come out of here. well, it's clear that the president would not be speaking

today, were it not for the actions of edward snowden and whistle blowers before him like frank drake and bini. although those national whistle blowers have forced this debate, this president has been dragged, kicking and screaming to today's address. he is being very reluctant to make any concrete reforms. and unfortunately today we also see very few concrete reforms. what we see is kicking off the ball into the congressional grasps, into panels of lawyers that he will report oh -- he will construct or report back at some stage in the future. my greatest concern, i think, looking at this broader package, is what was not said. there was no restriction on secret law. the fisa court, which he named as the court that will review some of this process, is known to be the most secret captive court in the united states

that's producing secret judge-made law. there was a law, section 215, that was designed to protect american citizens from these invasive searches and seizures. the fisa court and the doj secretly reinterpreted that law to make it apply to the entire country. >> let me ask you this. if i can interrupt just for a moment here. one of the things the president did talk about is at least some sort of public advocate who would work on behalf of individuals who they might have these -- the phone numbers -- there would be some process. there would be a way of actually protecting those individuals. you don't see that that is significant in any way in trying to at least establish some sort of benefit, someone who would act on this person's behalf, a ci citizen's behalf. >> look, the fisa court itself was originally set up following recommendations from the church community in the '70s. and overtime, it was quickly

corrupted. so a public advocate constantly in the fisa court in a secret manner is unlikely to produce a decent result. that said, of course, it is a small advance. we have to see whether being implemented, who would be this public advocate. there would have to be security-cleared, which means the nsa will have to approve of them in some way. there are some issues of the appointment of fisa court judges. the big problem with the fisa court is the creation of secret judge-made law that is capable of reinterpreting anything that congress passes in order to make it acceptable for the nsa to engage in bulk collection activity. what we didn't hear from the president was any meaningful protection of u.s. business. and, you know, i've been involved in tech industry for a long time. i know my friends in the u.s. really are hurting as a result of the nsa oh -- what has happened in the nsa. as far as the outside world is concerned, the united states has

become an arc pell go of conversion. facebook, yahoo! telecommunications country might have been a secret of the national security agency, because they're ordered to do so by the fisa court and they're forced to keep that secret. all through the mechanism of national security. >> let me talk -- >> at the moment, europe has much more competitive protections than the united states. for cloud data, ibm exports. >> right. >> the industry is hemorrhaging. there is no protection, no meaningful protection. >> i understand your point there, because there are at least a group of people from the telecommunications business who did visit with the president who complained that there were problems in terms of competition, saying their own software was being tainted. that was a problem, to get public trust, if you will, for

those particular companies. so that is a valid point. but the president did acknowledge that the u.s. has gone too far in spying on world leaders. he is saying that, you know, if he wants to talk to the german chancellor, angela merkel, he can pick up the phone and call her. they are not necessarily going to spy on foreign leaders. but would still spy on foreign governments. i want you to listen to the distinction that the president made. >> now, let me be clear. our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments. as opposed to ordinary citizens. around the world. in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. we will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. >> isn't that an important distinction here? i mean, he does give some assurances that, you know, this is not going to be something that's going to be done willy-nilly here. they have have to have some sort of national security concern, if they're going to look at these foreign leaders and foreign

governments. and he makes that distinction. >> well, we heard a lot of lies here in this speech by obama. he said, for example -- >> how so? >> the national security agency has never abused what it has done. when the fisa court has found -- even the fisa court has found again and again that it has done just that. so if the national security agency is interpreting what national security means, the secret court, fisa, is interpreting what national security means, of course, ambiguous terms. and in a secret institution, they gradually become corrupted over time. that's precisely how he ended up in in this. >> if you will, specifically -- yes, go ahead. >> we're not going to spy on angela merkel or david cameron. or the australian prime minister. sure. but let me just spy on everyone

else they talk to. it doesn't mean anything to not spy on world leaders. maybe you can save a bit of pr flack if another edward snowden comes along. i don't think actually the spying on world leaders would cause pr problems. i don't see that to me as a real concern. the real concern is that when you have an organization as powerful as national security agency has become and its five allies and the cost of engaging in mass surveillance is decreasing about 50% every two years because of the cheapness of computers and the cheapness of bandwidth, that is a threat to constitutional government in the united states. and also into other countries. what i wanted to see today was a mechanism that would retard that tendency, producing a long-term threat to constitutional government. i don't see that. i don't see that individuals are protected from those surveillance abuses. i don't see any prosecutions.

you know government is serious when it starts talking about someone is going to be prosecuted. >> all right. >> going to prosecute edward snowden. i didn't see talk of prosecution of james clapper, investigation of anyone, anyone being fired. the national security agency being split apart into its functions. decreases in budgets or any protection, meaningful protection. >> we're going to get more from you in just a moment. we've got to take a quick break. but obviously, we'll get more about edward snowden, more about julian assange, his own life in the embassy and what is next for him. we're going to take a quick break first. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 trading inspires your life. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 life inspires your trading. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 where others see fads... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...you see opportunities. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 at schwab, we're here to help tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 turn inspiration into action. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 we have intuitive platforms tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 to help you discover what's trending.

tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and seasoned market experts to help sharpen your instincts. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so you can take charge tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 of your trading. we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness if you qualify, and new car replacement, standard with our auto policies. so call liberty mutual at... today. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?

we're back with julian assange, founder of wikileaks, and thank you for joining us. i appreciate your time, of course, after the president's speech dealing with some of the reforms he's talking about in the nsa. i want to talk about edward snowden, who is now in russia. he's granted temporary asylum for his role in releasing and exposing those classified nsa surveillance programs. there have been some pretty high-powered folks who don't want to see snowden harshly punished here. for instance, senators like rand paul, who we just heard from within the last hour, as well as the "new york times." rand paul saying i don't think edward snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison.

i think that's inappropriate. and i think that's why he fled. "new york times" editorial. it is time for the united states to offer mr. snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home. here's what the president said about snowden today. >> i will say that our nation's defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation's secrets. if any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe or conduct foreign policy. >> so julian, he is still saying he doesn't think that snowden went about this the right way. what do you think is appropriate for snowden? >> well, look, obviously the internal mechanisms failed. this president failed. this administration failed and our security agency failed to hold itself to account

internally. when there is a failure of internal oversight, other people have to step into the role. and that's what edward snowden has done. that's what the press involved in this matter has done. edward snowden next week will be making, i believe, an online response to president obama on freesnowden.is. his defense team and defense fund. >> tell he is more about that. when was the last time you talked to edward snowden or his team? >> well, because of communication/security concerns, which must be all too obvious, i don't speak directly about the nature of my communications. the uk government has admitted to spending 6 million pounds, about $10 million, so far on spying on me in them because, just the police alone. but i think edward snowden today will be quite happy that at least there is 45 minutes of a

president speaking about these issues. there's going to be a lot of debate generated as a result of the president's statements. debates including some of the details, for example, if an independent body is created to hold that data or presumably the fbi and other law enforcement bodies. we know what the situation is in europe. many european countries tell their telecos to hold their data for 18 months. what's the difference in the united states, where people in the united states are subject to less rights than europe? despite the fourth amendment? so clearly, there's a problem there. edward snowden and other nsa whistle blowers have seen that problem and are addressing it. >> julian -- >> in relation to your question about edward snowden's circumstance, and what will happen with him, well, he is,

thanks to our efforts and some lawyers, safe now in russia. his visa is coming up for renewal in eight months. his asylum visa. i suppose that is an important time for him and people should be supportive of him. >> was he watching the president's speech? >> at the same time -- >> excuse me. do you know if he was watching the president's speech? you say he's going to be responding in a week or so. do you know if he was watching? >> he will be responding next week, i believe, possibly early next week. i'm not sure if he's watching, but i'm sure he's following the matter quite closely. i know he does follow the debate and the reform debate in the united states quite closely. >> and let's talk about your own circumstance here, because what we understand is that at least here in the united states, that it is -- you are likely not going to be facing charges --

officials have indicated there is no sealed indictment against you. ask according to the "new york times," justice department officials are saying if they were to prosecute you, they would have to prosecute many news organizations in the united states and journalists, as well. they're just not going to do that. if that's off the table, right, and you're not going to have to face -- likely face charges in the united states, you city face the allegations in sweden of sexual misconduct. you have repeatedly said those are politically motivated, retribution for your website. would you consider stepping out of the embassy grounds, off the grounds, taking your case, and defending yourself in sweden to prove them wrong? >> well, look, unfortunately, it's not the case. what you claim. that was one anonymous official speaking, anonymously to the "washington post." subsequently, the district attorney involved in the matter in our grand jury, which has now been going for three years, the biggest investigation into a publisher, the most expensive

that has ever occurred in u.s. history -- >> i'm sorry. what did you say was not the case? are you talking about the allegations in sweden or the indictment in the united states? >> the formally -- yeah, formally the investigation into wikileaks and me continues in the united states. it's run by the virginia district -- virginia federal attorney. he has confirmed that it formally continues. there's -- seems to be some debate, perhaps, within the doj about the correctness of that investigation. i hope that our staff are protected and that wiser heads prevail in the u.s. and drop that investigation. but unfortunately, now it continues. we know that a wide range of people have been involved in that session. the fbi, the nsa, the cia, has publicly declared that he's been involved in an investigation. 12 u.s. government agencies.

it has been the largest investigation into a publisher ever. it has gone on for more than three careers and continues, it's a disgrace, a threat to journalists, a threat to my staff. thanks to our lawyers, we're fighting it. but thus far, it continues. in relation to the swedish matter, i have not been charged in sweden. there are allegations. the ecuadorian government has asked that sweden not expedite me to the u.s. if i go to sweden, unfortunately, sweden has refused and also refuse to say come here to speak to me and thus, unfortunately, we're at an impasse. >> so you remain where you are in the ecuadorian embassy in london. julian assange, thank you so much for your time, for your perspective. we really appreciate your taking the time this afternoon. and thanks for watching "around the world." "cnn newsroom" starts right after this.

right now, too far, not far enough. reaction pouring in about president obama's speech about spies. and a drought emergency. some cities see annual rain amounts 30 to 40 inches below normal. the danger is growing as wildfires spread. and right now with an aarp card and a dance party, the first lady of the united states, michelle obama, marks the big 5-0. hello, i'm wolf blitzer, reporting from washington. we start with president obama's big announcement of sweeping changes to american surveillance. in his highly anticipated speech just a little while ago, he defended the vault collection of