>> if it prevents me from getting blown up, i am all for the government doing what they're reasonably should do. >> this week on "inside washington" -- what is the price of freedom? the government snooping debate. >> in violates the constitution of the united states. new in-your-ent's face national security appointment. >> we have vital opportunities to seize ongoing challenges to confront. >> plot thickens in the irs scandal. >> it is the obama irs and we

plan to get to the truth here. >> sexual assaults in the military. the top brass get an earful. >> how many women are raped and sexually assaulted, are you freaking kidding me? >> someone got in her face, and she did not like it. >> let's say you want to fly out to boston to visit her grandmother. before you step on the airplane, you will be electronically strip searched and pope or groped. the most intimate items in your luggage will be searched. liquid items will be subject to inspection. agency,atisfied by the they will be tossed out.

as with boston and other cities, cameras will be watching your every move. this week we learn that your phone calls and internet activities were in the hands of the federal government. federal agencies are tapping directly into the servers of google, facebook, apple, and others, all in the name of security authorized by the patriot act. >> i hope the american people appreciate we are at war, because i sure do. >> we do not want to compromise our freedoms and privacy as individuals. >> you may want to speak to your friends at the associated press and james rosen about their experience with the justice department. anybody want to argue with benjamin franklin? charles? >> i would be happy to. you can have him on next week, in fact. we made a promise under the bush

years, we knew we would be trading away our liberties for safety. we have had safety. hypocrisy is a man like obama as a candidate running against that and denounces bush for trampling on civil liberties and then not only maintains the programs, but expands them. but i applaud that. i support them in the bush years, i support them now. the only question is we know that the government has a huge amount of information. the question is, you have to have a sense of trust for the people that have the information. the reason that it is a scandal, rather than being revealed three months into the administration, is because they have lost the trust of america as a result of the other scandals. nina?st, >> the lack of trust may go to the legislature or is. most people have the idea that there is the fisa court, they

could say no. the first time the patriot act passed. it has been slowly whittled down and now there is little ability to say no. it reviews the program. it basically reviews how much they can keep and for how long. it does not say, no, you cannot get the materials. >> are we giving up essential liberties, colby? >> we are giving up privacy, no question about that. in this case, the program that "the washington post" reported on, we also have congressional oversight. intelligence committees of both houses were very much aware of the scope of this operation, and proved it. you have someone like dianne feinstein of california saying there is nothing new here. you also had the ranking republican say the same thing.

>> didn't candidate obama promise transparency in government? >> he had addressed exactly what we are discussing now. in his first inaugural address, january 20, 2009, he had a very important sentence. he said we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. 2013,forward to june 6, aboard air force one, his chief deputy secretary who said, the president welcomes a discussion of the trade-offs between security and civil liberties. i support charleses point. there is either hypocrisy there or president obama has simply grown into the job, but he has certainly reversed himself. >> then well-known right-wing newspaper "the new york times," says a fraud editorial that the

administration has lost all credibility on this issue. the executive branch will use all power that it has and will likely to abuse it. >> i respect libertarian to oppose this. ron wyden has hinted at this. he was not allowed to talk about it. out dianneed feinstein, another liberal who supports it. i think it is good that we have a debate an act of resistance on this, otherwise, the government will be snooping in on your bed room. in regards to obama, it is hypocrisy but it is also entered office. as a critic it is easy to say, no trade-off. you get into the office, you get the first national security brief, and your hair stand on end, and then everything that you do goes to we do not want another 9/11. >> you do not know until you are sitting there getting the

information, the scope of the problem. at that point, the president owed it to himself and his supporters to say something about that, to take the initiative and explain this nexus between security and privacy. >> you cannot use the possibility of a terrorist attack to justify massive abuse of presidential power. when the price of liberty cannot be continual massive spying on one's own citizens without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. when nbc begins its nightly news by saying, when you pick up the phone and make a phone call, the government knows who you are calling, we have gone too far. >> i have to take my hat off to the national security agency, getting verizon to cooperate with them. i have been trying for a year

and a half for them to do something about that tree that is leaning on the telephone wire next to my house. if you check my records, i have been calling them and they do not respond. >> let me ask you a question. we supreme court ruled this , our dna has the right of privacy. what about the fourth amendment on prohibition? >> it did not quite say that. it's sad when you were arrested for a serious crime -- a 5-4 decision -- >> and your dna catches you for something that you did months ago. >> they can take that and check it against a national database. if it comes up with a match for an unsolved crime, they go. there was a very vociferous dissent from justice scalia and the three girls. >> uh oh. >> she gets to say that and we

cannot. >> that is true. that was the point that the majority made. these are not 100% clear issues. i am with roger on this, i think, on the phone calls and stuff like that. at least i would want a more rigorous review from a court before the government could do it. we have just sort of slipped into this. if you happen to notice, on your computer, you inquire about a product from one merchant. you may get back and offer from another merchant. they are watching us and i do not like that. >> i want to make one point. the real problem with obama is coming in the big speech he gave on national security a few weeks ago on drones, he announces the war on terror is essentially over, wants to abolish it authorization of the use of force. on the one hand he tells the american that the war on terror is essentially over, and then he

has this incredible a massive program ongoing, and that is the problem. either we are at war or we are not. if we are not, we do not want any of this snooping they are doing. i wouldis a quote, rather be exposed to too much liberty than those having a too small degree of it. thomas jefferson. i am not sure if he which is 9/11 if he would be the same -- if he would be saying the same thing. you recalibrate your liberty depending on the threat. we did this during world war i, will war, and world war ii, and then the emergency ends, and then we go back. the problem with this crisis is the war is not ending, it will not end with a signature the way that the other wars did. we are living in limbo.

the one problem with what obama did, colby raised this. i wouldhe program that support in general, but he never makes the case. why don't you go to the american people and level with them? of course, he argues the war on terror is over. >> he does not. >> he should be making the case continually. bush made the case which after week. he kept the issue in people's minds. therefore, he could say, i have to have the security that will match the threat. obama never talks about this. runs amizes it, yet, he program that is more intrusive. i am interested by the constant use of the fear of terrorist attack to excuse virtually any behavior.

that excuse in the debate over torture. >> and it was not out in the open. a why should we torture terrorist if we can prevent 9/11? why should we torture americans? and benjaminson franklin were right. there comes a point where you cannot protect liberty by becoming an enemy of liberty. we are going to reach that point if we excuse all executive power by possibly preventing a terrorist attack. >> a lot of people watching this show are in the state department, have served overseas, there is something called a brewing back. you keep it by your desk. things are destroyed at the end of the day. you do not talk about certain things unless you are in at a certain room.

that atmosphere is now here with us. now we feel the same way about our positions, what we can destroy, how we behave in public, but we behave differently overseas. >> let me ask you a particular washington question. aren't you regarded when you're in a restaurant -- >> yes, but this has sort of stuff up on us. charles is rewriting history here. smart people did not entirely realize what was in the second patriot act and the subsequent ones. both presidents bush and obama are guilty of this. there was a case about this in the supreme court this year, which is the only reason that i realized that, a, you never know or can challenge whether they

have information about you, what their systems are. court does not have the ability to veto those systems any more. it only reviews the outer limits of what they keep. you have no lawyer in the fisa court. nobody is appointed to represent the interest of the people. i agree with charles. there are needs for this, but i also think you need to protect yourself from complete executive -- hard return let me end on a note of comedy. having a debate like this is exactly what will protect us. >> susan rice, still in the game. >> susan rice has demonstrated, in the case of benghazi, that she has very poor judgment. >> susan rice played point guard on our high school basketball team. a good player, smart. president obama says that she is

also a top executive. some members of congress are not happy about this appointment. however, they cannot be tough because this does not require approval. does this change the course? >> in terms of substance, it will not. >> she is not tom donnelly, that is for sure. have theeds to capacity to work with congress, even though she is now at a position that did not require confirmation. let me put it in this context. if a man does something, he is considered to be forceful. if a woman does the same thing, she is aggressive. i think susan rice gets a bad rap on this because she is a very forceful individual. that she is somehow a flame thrower -- >> the good news for the other

team, it gives them a chance to talk about benghazi more. >> actually it does not because she does not need to be confirmed. the president has the right to choose whoever he wants as national security adviser. i think it is rather ironic the conservative hawks who said earlier on in the early of the year early in the scandal that she would never be nominated, that they would strike down her nomination, made a mistake. had it gone ahead, we would have had her in here and she would have to explain -- secretary of state is what i mean. now she is in a position of high authority without that. i would not deny that to the president. i am not sure that i would have opposed her nomination to secretary of state. the president said about benghazi, do not pick on her, picked on me. she spoke on my behalf. i think he is right. he is the one on the dock.

>> my concern is not really any of the benghazi stuff. the documents really show that she did not have anything to do with it. that has gone on from here, she is much more of an intervention a lost person anton donilon. if you are less interventionist, you would not be particularly welcoming of that. >> she is right. she will abdicate a much more muscular foreign policy. she believes in the armed intervention to protect human rights and to prevent massacres. she was forced in bosnia and rwanda and libya. the real question is, does she believe in it in syria? are we going to use lethal going in are we ourselves to help them?

consulther they did not hillary clinton on this one. >> the monster? she has a record of not only being an internationalist, but also in human rights advocate. immediately after her nomination, the anti-defamation supporter because of her work in the international arena. but this is still barack obama as foreign policy. susan rice may want to intervene but she also has to deal with the other national security team, including the secretary of state. >> the one thing to worry about, and to some extent, with ofan rice, they have a view intervention for humanitarian reasons. that is very risky. foreign policy is not social work. you have to have a really hard- headed assessment.

if we're going to commit american troops, it has to be on the basis of our own security and interest. to cannot make a hostage humanitarian. otherwise, we would be everywhere in the world. >> more have details from the irs. dealing with sexual assault in the military. >> there is a difference between spending others money and your own. people in government 10 not to treat taxpayer dollars as their own. that is a cultural problem. >> senator lindsey graham reacting to the new that the irs spent millions on everything from event planners to a video conference. pack rat on to the news that the irs has been zeroing in on conservative groups and you have something that washington can 9 off of for many years. >> we should. it has gone beyond who is watching the watchers. put aside the fact that they spent millions on a party and do

not have receipts. i cannot get paid back from my company if i do not have a receipt. they spent a $4.1 million or more and they do not have receipts. probably more serious and wasteful of taxpayer money is the targeting of conservative .roups because of their names the most hilarious one, in a certain dark sense, is that they targeted the groups that had bill of rights or constitution in their names. >> unamerican. >> we cannot make this up. connect this to the white house yet? >> watergate took two years? >> he is really trying. >> it is very early and we do not know -- everyone agrees it was wrong. there were some on the committee

who tried to defend what happened and they embarrassed themselves. the president has called it an outrage. the new head of the irs said it was a betrayal of trust. we already know, from what the people have said, they were getting direction, instructions from washington. now we are up one layer. we are already in washington. i would advocate giving lois lerner, a rather unpleasant person, and arrogant and the way she handled herself, i would like to give her immunity. >> give her immunity. i want to 0.1 thing out. i checked this week. there are exactly two political one is the commissioner whose term is limited, and the commissioner was a bush appointee up until november this past year.

then there was a career person put in as the acting. the other person is the general counsel. other than that, these are all career peo -- >> as it should be. it is not a political organization. this is the line that they crossed with these inquiries. >> i want to ask you something. you are a former army officer. i have never seen so many stars in one place since the white house correspondents' dinner. you saw these people standing up defending the chain of command in the military sexual assault scandal saying, you cannot do this. what would you do? >> they are in the chain of command, protecting their own interest. the has been demonstrated, chain of command does not work as far as sexual assaults are concerned. you cannot have superior officers -- not just officers,

but a whole list of people -- when they may have engaged in the same conduct themselves. >> doesn't the british army go in this direction? >> not only the british army but several others. >> you are right. it is out of hand. according to the department of defense, 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact in 2012. 2010, and ite over is estimated that 90% of the cases go unreported. this is a massive problem. to have this row of uniformed men -- i think there was one woman up there -- all saying we will take care of it. clare mccaskill was right when she said, you guys seem to be very bullish on the status quo. the status quo is not working.

haveam with them and i friends in the military. the chain of command is an article of faith. i understand it. it is simply unimaginable to anyone in the military that he would break the chain of command, but this is not working, and there has to be a different way of doing it. ofcan i make one point rebuttal on the previous issue? nina was tried to mitigate the political scandal by saying the two appointees were republican appointees. david suter a republican appointee, but he was not exactly a conservative. you cannot judge someone's political orientation based on the person that appointed him. what these people did from high to low was to victimize and target conservatives. >> lesson from the first lady on how to deal with a heckler. >> this is obama is very

disciplined, rarely puts herself in the position where she could have something happen unexpected. >> it is my personal opinion that she handled it brilliantly. >> the first lady was at a fund- raiser held at someone's home. a woman in the crowd asked why the president had not signed an executive order barring the federal government from discriminating by sexual orientation. the first lady said, one of the first -- one of the things i do not do well is this. if you want the mike, you can have it. i will be out of here. >> this is one of those situational things. if she had been in an auditorium with 5000 people and the person in the top pros said that, nothing would have happened. she was in a small gathering in a home where she had access to the person. the dynamics are different and that is why you have that response. >> i am in favor of the smack down.

i do not know why rude people expect to be treated politely. >> that is perfect. >> this was a professional event appeared this was a professional hecklers. she did not want a discussion with michelle obama.she wanted . well, if you are going to get into michelle obama's face, she will get into yours. >> i entirely endorse roger. i wish i had said that. it is odd, if you give a public speech, you expect to be heckled, but this was in someone's home, fundraiser, this was supposed to be someone's friend. >> you get the last word. thanks. see you next week.

yy >> welcome to "skyweek."

let's see what's happening in the sky from monday, june 3rd to sunday, june 9th. the three-planet drama continues low in the west after sunset. jupiter appears lower each evening and soon sinks out of view. but venus and mercury soar high. and you might see a super-thin crescent moon below them shortly after sunset on sunday. this is the best week in 2013 to view mercury, the elusive innermost planet, which few people have knowingly seen. it's still well above the horizon an hour after sunset in the constellation gemini, and it's easily located upper left of dazzling venus. this is tony flanders from sky & telescope magazine, wishing you clear skies and great views. >> brought to you by woodland hills camera & telescopes. serving stargazers since 1952.

>> bill moyers: this week on "moyers and company --" >> richard wolff: our system capitalism, which we finally have to debate now that it's so dysfunctional. our system isn't working. it isn't producing for the mass of people. and an economic system that is only as acceptable, or should be, as its performance. >> announcer: funding is provided by -- carnegie corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the kohlberg foundation. independent production fund, with support from the partridge foundation, a john and polly guth charitable fund. the clements foundation. park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the hal