especially one that has pen prosecuting twice as many sources as any president before. moreover, my even larger concern is: i don't see how democracy can survive when one branch, the executive branch, has all the personal communications of every member of congress, and every judge, every member of the judiciary, as well as the press, the fourth estate that i've just been describing. i don't see how the blackmail capability that's involved there can be -- will not be abused as it has happened in the past, including to me, by the way, and to other -- and to journalists. i think without that freedom to investigative -- bring checks and balances we won't have a real democracy. that's my concern. >>brown: let's let mr. mukasey respond. >> that is an hysterically inaccurately portrayal of what

that is a microscopic amount of use. although an important amount of use. so far as surveillance conducted abroad, our friends spy on us, and we spy on them. that is an open secret. and has been for years. and i seriously doubt that any of them would be either surprised or actually disturbed to hear it. and to say that the russians and the chinese would like to have access to these techniques is to prove my point. the russians and the chinese now do have access to them thanks to them having access to mr. snowden's computer whether he libraries it or not because he -- likes it or not because he was in china. the chinese were perfectly capable of taking what was in his computers and the russians as well.

i think russia and china would be envious of our capability, in countries that aren't exactly democratic. my concern the very existence of this kind of capability chills in some way, i can't see how there can be investigative reporting of this community, when the identity the metadata and the communication between every journalist, every source is known to the executive branch. especially one that has pen prosecuting twice as many sources as any president before. moreover, my even larger concern is: i don't see how democracy

why we're spying on our friends i don't think we're spying on the chinese in order to find muslim terrorists may i suggest. i think that what has been revealed about the degree of listening in we're doing to the rest of the world is that that's hardly a major purpose in spying on france, or germany or elsewhere, any more than it is here. the benefit to the government, the executive branch, it's not a benefit to us as a public. a finding out, in the case of the chinese trade negotiations but any kind of negotiations they want, any kind of dissent, i want to say very specifically what doesn't seem to have come out. russell tise has stated as have any other nsa whistle blower, william ben yir, curtis drake, william webe, that this is the tip of the iceberg, nsa is

investigative -- bring checks and balances we won't have a real democracy. that's my concern. >>brown: let's let mr. mukasey respond. >> that is an hysterically inaccurately portrayal of what is available to the government. what is available are two kinds of information. one is so-called metadata which is a pile of numbers, numbers called and times. they are not associated with particular people and the only purpose of having that is to have a database against which to check suspicious numbers from abroad that are documented to belong to suspected terrorists under the supervision of a court. and to query that database. that database consists of millions and millions of numbers, that's all. and it -- in 2012 it was queried 300 times by the 15 people who are authorized to query it. that is a microscopic amount of use. although an important amount of

>> so mr. ellsberg, what description would you of mr. snowden, a whistle blower or a criminal or what? >> certainly he is a whistle blower by any reasonable standards. if i'm a whistle blower he is a whistle blower. i'm glad there is a dispute about that because in my day that was not an honorristic term, it was like trait. there is no question that he is and i'm confident that he is not a traitor. any more than i am and i'm not or mr. mukasey. by the way when mr. mukasey says that the russians now have access to what he has, i believe actually, what mr. snoant, edward snowden has told as of today, former senator gordon humphrey, he assured them that the people are wrong, he used to teach computer security to dia and he was confident that even our own nsa was not capable of getting the secrets. i think it's mistaken to say

george mcgovern and william fulbright, both refused to take that stuff and disclose it. you disclosed it instead to the new york times. >>brown: mr. ellsberg just in our last minute please come back to the snowden case. what would you like to see happen now? >> i'll tell you exactly. i would like to see russell tice, william benny, thomas drake and curt webe testify before congress under oath testify that these programs are unconstitutional and criminal, they have asked to testify and have been ignored by congress. that is exactly the debate that edward snoanld wante -- snowdend to have. that is the conversation that should take place in congress, not being involving the pfizer court, the thousands and thousands of acceptance, it's clearly a rubber-stamp court we need to change that.