continues. host: the conversation i want government surveillance, our guest is jamil jaffer who founded the national security institute at george mason university law school.

explain what section 702 is and why congress is talking about it now. guest: we conducted and will target foreigners, spies, terrorists of the like and will target them by surveillance on their email, phone and the like. the way that is effectuated is by working with telecommunications providers, phone companies in the united states who have access. the reason congress can talk about it today, it was enacted in 2007, 2008.

every five years or so, congress has to reauthorize it. come december 31 of this year, if congress does not, that authority will go away and the bulk of the u.s. government's capability to collect on foreign intelligence targets disappear. host: has that ever happened? has there been a gap in their ability to do this? what is the intelligence community saying? guest: there was a brief period where we had a predecessor legislation expired in 2008 before this law was enacted for six months. during that time, there were orders of existence already out there. we continued to be able to collect them. the problem was that a lot of providers that we worked with reduced their surveillance, reduced cooperation of the government and right at a time where you have heightened threat of that ability to, the congress acted to provide authority and that worked out.

in that period, there was a challenge where we were not getting new, additional surveillance on terrorist and spy suspects. host: what is the likelihood this gets reauthorized? what are members of congress saying about this? guest: there is controversy because a lot of times section 702 gets confused with other parts of the foreign intelligence act to conduct surveillance against americans. the problem is, there has been challenge in that space in particular. i a lot of people are saying, should we reauthorize section 702? it is a different such a situation. the other challenges, there has been some inadvertent mistakes and additional queries that go beyond what is authorized. >> test test test test test test

test to protect the nation. host: do americans get caught up in these searches when they go too far? guest: they may call it american, in those cases, you get that surveillance. if you want to collect on a non-american because you are concerned they are talking to a spy or the like, you have to get a court order to survey that american. you will go in and search for it based on a foreign intelligence need and identify -- if you conduct searches too broadly, you have it on a list of databases that can be searched. if they do not know they are searching that database, the problem is we have to have better rules in place. stronger punishments in place when mistakes and when it is an intentional error. congress wants to put those

reforms in place. that makes sense, protect americans privacy and civil liberties. you do not want to let it expire or put in place restrictions that would hamper the ability of the government to conduct surveillance that protects americans and at home. host: what would hamper it? what is going too far in your mind in terms of some of these reforms? guest: one of the biggest changes we have made in the post september 11 era was to permit the government to share information between the criminal side of the government, the fbi and the like and the intelligence community. we tore down the wall between criminal intelligence and surveillance. there are some folks in congress who think the better -- to better protect privacies, we should enact more requirements. if you want to search in this database, you have to get a warrant from a separate court order. all information is lawfully collected. to get a court order to search a file cabinet will make it harder

and not protect americans privacy that much better. that is a new wall or. can make it harder -- a new wall that can make it harder. just this weekend, the attack of commercial shipping in the red sea by rebels. host: talking about government surveillance. talking to jamil jaffer, if you want to join the conversation you can do so. phone lines are open. democrats, it is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. in a world of government surveillance and intelligence collecting, how much of our information comes from section

702 type of program versus the information we get from human intelligence sources, spies overseas? explain where this fits into the world of our intelligence that we gather. guest: this is one of the most important intelligence programs we have because it collects information, it gets terrorist and spy targets about 200,000 a year are the number of people. that is not that many people were anything about 7.5 billion people worldwide. 350 million americans. those are the high-value targets. host: we get access to all of their phone records, everyone they have been talking to in transcript of calls? how far does this go? guest: it is the content of their communications. these are foreigners looking outside the united states. you have to translate that, process that, create intelligence reporting. this capability is so important,

it contributes about 60% of the present, most important stuff the president reads every day. about 70% of the articles in the president's book he gets, a huge chunk of information the president of the united states gets everyday, highest priority could be gone. host: four section 702, what are the successes? will the intelligence community say this program stop this attack? have they been doing that to advocate this program? guest: one of the challenges is they will not declassify as much as you or i would like about what they are collecting. they will talk about it at the level of, helped us disrupt an attack in a foreign country or a major drug operation involving fentanyl. they will not give these details, it was in the city,

because you do not want them to know they are on surveillance or them were their friends. we can see what has been declassified across the board. it is not just terrorism or terrorist attacks in potentially the u.s. and abroad, a threat to american soldiers. it is fentanyl coming from china to the united states. it is a broad scope of intelligence collection that protects americans not just from spies and terrorists but drug smugglers, chinese hackers, russian hackers and the like. host: what are the telecommunications companies saying about this? do they like section 702? how much of a hassle is it for them to turn over the information when the government asks 200,000 times a year? guest: i think the companies, the providers, the folks the government goes to are used to getting requests for information because this has been going on now for 15 plus years. they are in the mode of operation, they can handle the queries. the question is, are we getting

enough and are we able to use it? if authority goes away, you are not going to get it. if authority stays in place but the government puts up barriers that make it hard to share information, if you remember, there were two terrorists that flew the plane into the pentagon. they lived in san diego and their true names. he have found them. the cia had taken pictures of them a year earlier at a meeting . because there was concern, can we share information with the eighth ei -- with the fbi? that information was not shared. we looked at them at the last minute and they flew planes into the pentagon. i am not saying we could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. the reason we decided to take down this wall between criminal surveillance and criminal efforts is precisely this reason.

rebuilding it now would be a mistake. host: not to give away the playbook, but if one is a terrorist in 2023, shouldn't they assume if they connect to a u.s. network with their cell phone that u.s. government will have access to that? guest: absolutely. the beauty of the capability is that oftentimes, it is not just communication where using a u.s. cell phone number or u.s. email address. you may be able to gather information about phone calls overseas by going to u.s. providers because the way the telecommunications system works. the authorities it gives us allows us to collect on a lot of information that might not be obvious. if you are a terrorist or spy, you should assume we are surveilling you and on to you. we may not be, but the reality is, you should operate that way. people have to work and communicate, they have to share information. if we can get it and use it to protect americans in the united

states and abroad, we are safe as a result. host: your opinion is this should be reauthorized as is without new restrictions. guest: in an ideal world., that would bethe case there have been challenges. .some reforms are necessary you need more oversight by congress. it is helpful to have -- the one thing you should not do in terms of reforms, there are some reforms would be helpful, to put this barrier up. create a new requirement, that would be like literally taking a file drawer of important information, lock it up and have to go to a judge to go into that drawer to get information i already have. this is a barrier we created pre-9/11. host: we would like to chat with a few callers. jamil jaffer is with george mason university law school's national security institute.

c-span viewers have seen him in the past. this is sean in colorado, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. jamil, the crisis is -- our constitution is at risk with renewal of this bill. tucker carlson was spied on. mainly right wing people were spied on by the brownshirts at the fbi and the doj. they are now prosecuting political opponents. you have got to be kidding me. this bills speaker needs to be killed. this administration is out of control and it shows how they can abuse these warrants. they need to get a warrant to go after any american. thank you. i hope our country survives this administration. guest: sean raises an important point. there are concerns amongst liberals and conservatives about government surveillance. sean makes a point about surveillance upon political opponents.

it is a challenge. the thing about section 702, it does not authorize -- it authorizes surveillance against all americans. they would've had to go to a federal court and get a court order. i think which is talking about is the carter page surveillance system. he worked for the trump campaign. the government was surveilling him under title i. that is not section 702. they had gone and gotten a court order from the judge. the problem was, the lawyer working that court order modified a fact he knew that carter was working for the u.s. government. he was not. that lawyer was prosecuted. i would have stripped him of his bar licenses. i would have put him in jail. he pledged to a deal. that is the kind of problem that the law is designed to catch. it was caught. the guy was prosecuted.

ultimately, it was about this authority. this authority does not permit the surveillance of any american. it is important to her number this authority was obtained in a republican administration, the bush administration. it was reauthorized under president obama, and president trump. post -- president trump and his team understood section 702, not about this particular issue. the biden administration is seeking surveillance, but this is about foreign spies and terrorists overseas, not american political opponents at home. host: maybe it would be good to expand what you did before founding the institute at george mason? guest: i served in the bush administration at the justice department in the office of legal policy and the national security division, which is responsible for obtaining this surveillance. i worked as an associate counsel

under president bush. i would back to the government at the house intelligence committee. i worked for mike rogers and for the republican chairman of the ranking senate floor relations committee. we are out there to make sure america is well protected. we put together a bipartisan group of experts from across the political aisle, talk about intimate issues of american national security, both technology, the wars going on today and we advocate for a lien forward approach for america. we believe the world a safer when america acts and supports its allies and deposits -- and opposes its adversaries. we are an academic center. we educate a group of students at torch masons law school. we have a introductory degree of

law. we have graduate degrees of law, a master degree for cyber intelligence of national security. host: what is the most important thing the united states can do today to act in the security in the world were talking about? guest: we do not want to be the world's policeman. we are facing threats in various parts of our globe. our partners in ukraine are being attacked by a brutal dictator in vladimir putin. we have seen the terrorist attack in israel against hamas. we see china threatening our allies, taiwan, japan, now it is we see inthe terrorist attack i israel by hamas. we see china threatening our allies. taiwan, japan, the philippines over fishing rights. just over the weekend, we saw a commercial ship attacked by who the rebels in the red sea. they

provided aid and was potentially threatened as a result as well. 63 attacks against american soldiers by iranian backed rebels in the last month alone, john. it is not just we have to defend our allies and our friends. we are talking about direct threats here at home and abroad, so it is critical we respond to those attacks, support our allies and pushback to the adversaries. the more we do that, the more we test our boundaries. >> quickly, the naval attack over the weekend, remind people who the houthis are. >> they are a group in yemen and they have been fighting with the government of yemen for quite a while. they have control over significant parts of yemen. the saudi have backed the yemen government, as has the united states. houthi rebels are attacking

commercial shipping in the red sea, saying they are defending hamas and that's based on what's happening in gaza. this is a u.s. terrorist group. hamas has been a u.s. terrorist group since 1997. >> what is that doing for hamas? >> these ships are israeli ships . they will attack israeli civilians on these ships or they are carrying goods for israel. the ships attacked have relations with 14 countries. they are traveling near bermuda. often times these are panamanian ships and captains. that is part of the challenge. these are international waters. that is why the u.s. is there responding to the stress calls and potentially coming under attack themselves. >> is this ship to ship, long- range? do we know much about it

? >> we know at least one drone, one missile was shot down by the u.s. destroyer in the region. there have been prior missiles launched from yemen by the houthis. they have been shut down by u.s. warships in the region. >> this is franklin here in d.c. independent. you are armed with jamil jaffer. >> i've always been a proponent of this provision. all of the things the speaker has talked about. that was up until 15 minutes ago when john let that pedophile go on his monologue and i am concerned people are slipping through the cracks and we need to do everything we can to sweep up those kinds of powers that are so prominent. john, i want to thank you for changing my mind on this

important national security provision. >> domestic surveillance, the process of surveilling someone domestically. >> if you want any surveillance against an american, anywhere in the world, you need to go to the courts. if it's a typical criminal case, you will go to a federal judge and the process is almost identical. you need to present probable cause to show something. you need probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. for a court order, probable cause to believe they are and in foreign intelligence officer. no matter what, when you are going after an american, targeting an american, you need to go to a court. section 702 made that a law oversees. back in the day, you had to get attorney general authorization. if section 702 goes away, that

protection goes back to attorney general authorization. if you're worried about surveillance of americans, you want section 702 to be reauthorized . there are reforms being considered. that is not off the table but you don't want to create a requirement for searching the database once we have it. >> on the line for democrats, good morning. >> i noticed you were smiling at the guy on the right and i'm on the left and i see the problem. you've got your so-called think tanks and you sit around and make up equations. the 702 law doesn't do nothing. it doesn't protect the american people. i don't care who you are. you need to have some kind of document to listen to anyone, but the thing is you give us this falls sense of se