and so we began a very aggressive program with the chief judge of the fisa court at that time, judge kollar-kotelly, to take that part of the program that had been stopped and present it to her to see if we could get an order to allow that program to go forward. >> hayden personally meets with judge kotelly of the fisa court on two saturdays to make the pitch, to explain how they are going to do this. and kotelly eventually rules that this is legal: that the nsa can indeed collect all of the internet metadata going to and from the united states. and they used this authority that previously was used to trace numbers going to and from a single telephone... for everybody. >> narrator: kollar-kotelly's secret ruling relied on a controversial interpretation of

section 215 goes beyond criminal investigation by requiring the government before the fisa court can quest the affirmation that there is an additional burden to get the fisa order under section 215. it would raise a routine request to the level of a search warrant. we must remain cognizant to face security threats to look get these threats effectively. i would add with a reasonable suspicion standard was put in giuseppe tracked although the problems with the patriot fact brings us here today reasonable suspicion was not one. with the fear this could blow up with the of fast-track to passage and i oppose the gentleman's amendment. and yield back the balance of my time. >>. >>. >> verizon the opposition lip ashley history of the patriot fact as they recalled was report did unanimously. it changed for it got to the floor that one of the substantive reasons was the standard it was too loose the relevant standard the it it would be nice if it was higher but we never saw a probable cause. the gentleman is correct the edition of probable cause sections to 15 before any reforms with the usa f

we are putting an end to the bulk collection of metadata, and ensuring that important fisa court decisions are declassified for public consumption. these reforms are important and future interpretations of fisa must reflect our intentions here today. i support the act and i look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with my colleagues to make even more improvements in the in you ture. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired -- in the future. -- improvements in the future. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to mr. reed of new york for a colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise today to commend your efforts along with those of the judiciary committee in bringing this legislation to the floor of the house. as you and i have met and discussed on fume russ occasions along with my good friend from indiana, mr. stutzman, this issue is important to not only many of my constituents back in

again, court review, congressional review. >> can he invoke the fisa court the way its accountability has been deconstructed? it seems like an empty approval from that court. >> in the p.r.i.s.m. program we're talking about foreigners overseas, who do not, as a de descriptive matter, or normative matter, i don't think we should be looking out for the fourth amendment rights of al qaeda people. in the abundance of caution because they're communications transited the u.s. and used some u.s. companies, in 2008, congress saw fit to put some belt and suspenders around that to have some review by lifetime tenured article 3 judges who review this, with the justice department and report to congress. now, people say, fisa courts are a rubber stamp. really, have the litigators who have to go before the fisa court and get these reviewed every 90 days. the reason why the rate of approval is so high, is because doj does not dare take one step into the fisa court unless their pleadings are legitimate. >> it's clearly changing rapidly. that overview is helpful. as we part ways, the last question, ho

enhances civil liberty and privacy protections for amicusns by codifying curiae authority with the fisa court for applications involving a novel or significant interpretation of fisa. the amendment adds additional public reporting on additional fly zone warnings and expands additional reports to congress provisionss existing under the act to protect the vacations of americans. this is an important -- this is an appropriate import ties -- appropriate approach i support that will allow the government attacked the company and reflect our fundamental respect for civil liberties. i encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. the chair recognizes the children from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thank you chairman goodlatte and members of the committee. this manager's, amendment, the sensenbrenner manager's amendment remains by far the most important step taken to roll back they government surveillance of theed states citizen since passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 will stop this to me now stands poised to and the mystic bulk collection across the board. th

. >> narrator: general hayden was sent to the secret fisa court to convince a judge to restart it. >> could we get a court order

and it no longer protects the public through the fisa court. i'm disappointed that this popular, bipartisan bill has been so drastically weakened and i can no longer support it. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan

the administration has offered to change some of its procedures and the fisa court is taking steps to address concerns that have arisen. but est course is to trust codify. therefore, urge the adoption of this amendment and the passage of the bill. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california again seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. > the clerk will report. >> i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. >> without objection. and the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> under current law, section 215 allows that the collection of phone meta data if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information being sought is relevant to an authorized investigation. and as we have learned much to our regret, that phrasing has been used to engage in bulk collection of business records. the original u.s.a. freedom act which you autsdzedrd which i cosponsored used the standard of relevant and material to an authorized investigation. that language was a huge improvement and may have we

freedom act increases the transparency of our intelligence gathering programs cureo in an amicus the fisa courtis will be chosen from a panel of experts to help ensure the court adequately considers privacy concerns and the constitutional rights of americans when reviewing the government's request for records. it also requires the director of national intelligence and the attorney general to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the court that includes a significant construction or interpretation of the law, and mandates that the government report the number of orders issued, modified, or denied by the court annually. last year's national security leaks have also had a commercial and financial impact on american technology companies that have provided these records. they have experienced backlash from both american and foreign consumers, and have had their competitive standing in the global marketplace damaged. in january of this year, the justice department entered into a settlement with several companies to permit new ways to report data concerning requests

he also recommended placing a public advocate on the fisa court and limiting the number of hops the nsafollowing phone calls from one caller to the next, from three to two. senator rand paul, who may be running for president in 2016 has his own ideas. >> let's say senator paul becomes president paul. what does the nsa look like under a paul administration? >> we would still have the nsa, we would still have the cia and the fbi and we would try to obey the constitution. you know, if somebody is putting a bomb out there we have an immediate threat for all of this. but 99% of the time you would call a judge and say john smith we believe is a terrorist. we have this evidence. he has been talking to sam smith in iraq, will you give us permission to look at his phone calls. >> then we get the hundred people he has called. >> and get the terrorists before something happens? >> there are always exemptions for imminent danger. but by preventing it, you stop somebody who doesn't like jews or the japanese or doesn't like black people or doesn't like republicans or democrats you prevent the horribl

and so we began a very aggressive program with the chief judge of the fisa court at that time, judge kollar-kotelly, to take that part of the program that had been stopped and present it to her to see if we could get an order to allow that program to go forward. >> hayden personally meets with judge kotelly of the fisa court on two saturdays to make the pitch, to explain how they are going to do this. and kotelly eventually rules that this is legal: that the nsa can indeed collect all of the internet metadata going to and from the united states. and they used this authority that previously was used to trace numbers going to and from a single telephone... for everybody. >> narrator: kollar-kotelly's secret ruling relied on a controversial interpretation of a 25-year-old supreme court case. >> this was, frankly, a huge stretch. the idea that you could use this to justify the collection of trillions of pieces of internet metadata surprised a lot of people when it came out in the snowden archives. but that's where they went. >> narrator: the program was back on line, bigger than ever. >>

about whom to target and how aggressively to go after acquaintances of acquaintances. >> on that fisa courte law was supposed to have representative of the american people. and now there can only be friend of the court brief. the bill isn't law yet. it has to pass through the senate. and we'll see how it fairs there. because there are some libertarians who may like this version. we got a sense of the debate that may unfold because the chairman of the judiciary put out a statement supporting reform generally, but saying he was disappointed by some of the last-minute changes. >>> also in washington, 50 members of the senate urging the national football league to force the washington redskins to change their name citing the recent decision in the nba to ban los angeles clippers owner to donald sterling. they say racism and bigotry have no place in national sports. the letter was not offered up to republicans for their signatures. >>> hurricane season just around the corner, we're learning what we can expect in the upcoming here. plus we'll hear from the men and women who fly into the heart of

included in they want are items like this, the fisa court. ere was a proposal to have an advocate on there. inch stetted it is just government officials and there can only be a friend of the court brief. another criticism, companies like google and facebook, and apple say they believe there's a loophole that will allow for the collection of american internet records. we heard from some members of congress, like mike honda, he is a democrat who represents the silicon valley district. explain today why he just want support it. >> it leaves open the possibility that both surveillance can still continue. and that no longer protects the public through special advocate in the fisa court. i am disappointed that this popular, bipartisan bill has been so drastically weakened. and it can no longer support it. >> we did get a statement today. and while he applauds these first steps at changing surveillance, he said he was disappointed by what he called key reforms that have be removed. >> libby, appreciate it. the democratic senators sending a letter to

he also recommended placing a public advocate on the fisa court.ls from one caller to the next from three to two. senator rand paul, who may be running for president in 2016, has his own ideas. >> let's say senator paul becomes president paul. what does the nsa look like? >> we'd still have the nsa and the cia and fbi and we'd try to obey the constitution. 99.9% of the time, you call up a judge and say john smith we think is a terrorist. we have this evidence he's been talking to sam smith in iraq. will you give us permission to look at his phone calls? i wouldn't limit how far you can look. >> does the time it takes to get the judge to get that process, does it slow the ability to get the terrorists before something happens? >> no. there's always exceptions for imminent danger. by separating it, you prevent someone getting elected in the country that doesn't like jews or black people or democrats or republicans. you prevent the horrible abuse and this is happened in our past. the potential of abuse of power when too much power is collected in one

fisa court has been involved and review occurs. so can it be more transparent, can we have better oversight? yes. >> chuck, i know you've got to go to the briefing and prepare for all of that. what about the fact that he has so -- you alluded to the fact that he's angered people. he's angered them because the revelation about merkel's cell phone and spying on foreign governments has put the president and secretary of state and very definitely on defense whenever they go abroad. >> reporter: right, they are made because they've been embarrassed, right? what the white house and national security folks will argue privately is that okay, yes, we got caught doing this or it's been exposed. they are doing it to us too but we're somehow -- we've lost the high ground. so that's where i think a little bit of this embarrassment comes in. politically and this has been a criticism this white house has gotten from sympathetic former obama folks who say the president never had the political conversation with the country, never had -- he had an o

freedom act increases the transparency of our intelligence gathering programs cureo in an amicus the fisa courtthis will be chosen from a panel of experts to help ensure the court adequately considers privacy concerns and the constitutional rights of americans when reviewing the government's request for records. it also requires the director of national intelligence and the attorney general to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the court that includes a significant construction or interpretation of the law, and mandates that the government report the number of orders issued, modified, or denied by the court annually. last year's national security leaks have also had a commercial and financial impact on american technology companies that have provided these records. they have experienced backlash from both american and foreign consumers, and have had their competitive standing in the global marketplace damaged. in january of this year, the justice department entered into a settlement with several companies to permit new ways to report data concerning request

and yet the fisa court is pretty much a joke. it gives out warrants like lollipops. and i agree with him to the reason is this. whatever the motives are, the crime in the united states after 9/11 got out of control. 9/11 was a dramatic event. i was in manhattan on that day. i remember the emotions it triggers to this day. and the balance that we always have or try to maintain got completely out of whack so that everything that was justified in the name of terrorism from destroying a country of 26 million people to putting people in prism without target, to torture and spot a bug in e-mails and telephone calls, anything that can justify in the name of torture got done. that is what is wrong but that is what is dangerous and that is what i hope you will reject tonight. >> are you then prepared pashtun. [applause] >> are you then prepared, mr. greenwald, to withdraw your accusation of pretext but she's a motive doesn't matter and you can't have pretext without a bad motive. spent my basis for saying that terrorism and pretext them a

two nsa could get their hands on it if they go through the fisa court.his bill also change a number of hops the government can make when investigating someone if they are looking at a suspect, this would limit the number of associated. now some privacy groups and members are advocates. pulled the support at the last minute. that's because major changes were made. intelligence committees and the white house, tinker the bill and did create some softer landings. one with change, there's no longer an independent advocate called for on the court, someone representing the suspects, instead it is all government represented. instead, there could be just friend of the court briefs something that's already allowed today. congressman mike honda, who represent the silicon valley oriented district, talked about why he wasn't going to support this bill, on the house floor thursday morning. >> it leaves open the possibility that bulk surveillance could continue, and no longer protects the public through a special advocate in the fisa court. i am disappointed that this

for example, i introduced h.r. 2440, the fisa court and sunshine act of 2013. specifically, my bill would require the attorney general to expose the foreign intelligence -- the fisa court, allowing americans to know how broad illegal authority it had. even having an advocate for the american people. in sections 402 and 604, this in the bill. in addition, i strongly support this act because of section 301 of the bill continuing the prohibition against reverse targeting, an amendment i had in the restore act. and then, of course, it goes forward with ensuring that this megadating, this bulk collection does not occur. i'm grateful that the jackson lee-wilson-lee dealing with boko haram is in this national defense bill because we have to stop the tragedy that is going on but more importantly the devastation of boko haram. finally, i would have wanted the amendment that deals with the contracting out of our intelligence services, i believe it is too expensive. i breeb my amendment would have been effective in determining how much we use outside contractors. this is

finding of the church committee, they passed fisa which required the nsa get warrants from special fisa courts before it could perform certain surveillance within the u.s. the nsa adapted and moved on. ironically the agency's lowest point up until then came a number of years later, precisely because of its greatest success, the fall of the solve yet union. >> if you seek peace, tear down this wall. >> after the cold war ended, congress wanted the peace dividend. so they cut nsa's budget and nsa took money away from its research and development and put it into trying to keep operations up and running. >> general michael hayden was director of the nsa from 1999 to 2005. >> as the soviet union collapses, we have a technolo technological revolution going on over here and they both converged at a really inconvenient time for nsa. so after the fall of come nichl it took a hit. >> all i know fra structure no longer valid. declining budgets and that's pretty much where nsa was in the mid-1990s and the late 1990s. we could not keep up with the volume, variety and velocity of modern communications. >> y

the fisa court has to approve it.need to know it and the reality that there is a terrorist from outside the united states who is could be targeting someone inside the united states. >> sir, with regard to the specifics, how specific do they have to be? because i'm reading in the research here that it's not necessarily strictly defined. i mean, you can have the nsa, for instance, specify they want to collect targets in a city, a state, a zip code. >> that's really not correct. it has to be specific. i was with the attorneys. i was with chairman of the judiciary committee. we went over there for several hours. and you have to have a specific request. each request has to be stand-alone to go in and get approval from the fisa court. >> with regard to the senate, how do you expect that body to vote? >> well, i heard senator widen believed it was too restrictive. those individuals who are very much involved in the intelligence on behalf of our country understand the grave circumstances we face from our adversaries. and so i

we are putting an end to the bulk collection of metadata, and ensuring that important fisa court decisions are declassified for public consumption. these reforms are important and future interpretations of fisa must reflect our intentions here today. i support the act and i look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with my colleagues to make even more improvements in the in you ture. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired -- in the future. -- improvements in the future. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to mr. reed of new york for a colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise today to commend your efforts along with those of the judiciary committee in bringing this legislation to the floor of the house. as you and i have met and discussed on fume russ occasions along with my good friend from indiana, mr. stutzman, this issue is important to not only many of my constituents back in

wants them for a security investigation, it would then file for a special order with the secret fisa court. the bill's final version does not include a public advocate on the court. >> it leaves open the possibility that ba bilk surveillance could still continue. i'm disappointed that this popular bipartisan bill has been so drastically weakened and con no longer support it. >> the bill doesn't go far enough. i agree, it doesn't. there is rarely a good argument against the bill to say it doesn't go far enough if it goes a long way to solving a real problem. >> some say internet companies flagged a potential loophole in the law that could allow the government to look at people's web data. if the legislation clears congress, the president is expected to sign it, which would make this the first law to go into effect since exn.s.a. contractor edward snowden revealed to the american public that their government was spying on them. >> the president is making cabinet moves, donovan to the office of management and budget will replace sylvia matthews burrell, nominated to replace kathleen sebelius.

transmission has taken place and if they want to later on they can get permission from a very quiescent fisa court. i was concerned after watergate and that sort of thing that intelligence sometimes abused people. i know that the fbi did abuse martin luther king jr. and so forth. so we have a law passed called the fisa law in 1978 that absolutely prevented any american intelligence agency from spying on even one american communication unless they got a court order ahead of time certifying that it was a threat to american security. and that prevailed until after 9/11. and then that law was liberalized. and i think the law was changed quite a lot. and in my opinion when the congress changed it, the intelligence committee knew what was in the bill but the rest of the members of coming didn't have access to those secrets. so the laws were passed and i think fsa and others have exceeded the grant of freedom that the congress gave them and exceeded their intrusion into the private affairs of americans, yes. >> the book is a call to action, women, religion, violence and power. president carter, it's an h

retrieved, make them go to the intelligence community and go to the court if they wanted do, go to the fisa courtf they wanted those documents. now congress has been moving a bill and it's been moving very quickly. it could go to the house of representatives later, by the way, back doorways being punched in this legislation, to gather this metadata if they want to regardless of the legislation. a year into the controversy and something very clear, satisfying the public, this issue is far from resolved. mike viqueria, al jazeera, the white house. >> snowden remains in russia, his temporary ooh asigh legal runs out in june. obviously he misses america and would like to come home. we just don't see that happening in the near future. and greenwald told me today he thinks snowden might end up spending the rest of his life in russia. snowden appeared on russian television and are asked putin a question. >> i'd like to ask you, the bulk collection of records by intelligence sources. >> putin denied. they wanted to testify about america's surveillance of chancellor merkel's cell phone. coming up next, fa

onto that data and the government can still search it but it has to get a court order from the fisa court and a lot of tech companies like google and microsoft to disclose more details on when the government comes and asks for that information. that's something the tech industry had lobbied for. the vote could have been even bigger but the intel community demanded late changes to the bill and that angered some early supporters of this legislation and it also turned some of the tech companies against the bill as well. those companies like i said, that coalition, about nine tech companies saying there are still loopholes in here that allow the government to basically collect a lot of data, they're worried about that and they urge congress to make changes to this legislation but they could not support this bill after initially supporting it. nine companies all forming the reform government surveillance coalition. a concern about specific language in here concerning what the government can search for. it's too open-ended, too broad. >> i was looking at the vote and 70 democrats voted against

the time by which those records could be retrieved, making the intelligence community go to the fisa court if they wanted throws records. now congress has been moving a bill, it has been moving very quickly, could come to the house of representatives at the end of this mom month, to codify much of what the president proposed. however a lot of that is being watered down. civil libertarians see holes being punched in this legislation, allowing the intelligence community to gather this metadata if they want to regardless of the legislation. one thing is very clear one year into this, congress still struggling to find an answer to satisfy the public. this issue is far from resolved. mike viqueria, al jazeera the white house. >> snowden's temporary asylum runs out in june but one lawyer says it will probably renewed. obviously he misses america and would like to come loam. we just don't see that happening in the near future. and greenwald told me today, he thinks snowden might end up spending the rest of his life in russia. he had a question for vladimir putin. >> i'd like to ask you a question

one change, there is no longer an independent advocate called for on the fisa court, someone representing the american people, instead it is all government represented. instead, there could be friend of the court briefs something that's already allowed today. also, some internet companies like google and facebook, also apple say they are now concerned there's a loophole that could allow the government to look at their customers internet data. well, congressman democrat of california that represents the silicon valley, talked about why he wasn't going to support 24 bill on the house bill thursday morning. >> . >> i am popular this bill has been weakened and i can no longer support it. >> congressman honda was among 120 of his colleague whose voted against this, it still passed the house, and now goes to the senate. the top democrat on the judiciary committee, put out a statement today saying that while he approachuated the move forward to protect privacy, he was disappointed that the bill changed and ultimately didn't meet all the requirements that he and others were with calling for. she

perfect, the bill itself would require the public disclosure of all significant opinions of the fisa court. and we ask for a protection of the content of the u.s. persons communications from unnecessary disclosure or dissemination. this is a great move forward. we think that our civil liberties are protected. this is the first time since the foreign intelligence surveillance act was passed in 1978 that we have taken steps to roll back some of the aspects of government surveillance. and for that reason, i'm proud to stand with my colleagues today as we got a huge, overwhelming vote of support that makes me feel that the senate maybe even go -- may even be able to go further and take more steps. i now introduce the senior member of the house judiciary committee, a former subcommittee chairman from new york, jerry nadler. >> thank you very much. let me begin by thanking chairman goodlatte and chairman sensenbrenner and mr. scott for their great work on this bill. this is the first time since 1978 that we have advanced a bill to really rein in government surveillance. this bill will end will c

information with the phone companies and queery it for investigations as long as it gets approval by the fisa courts. >> closed door changes to phone surveillance alarm privacy advocates. what are they concerned about? marked up in committees house judiciary committee and house intelligence committee. and the version that showed up with the house rules committee this week had some pretty significant changes, one of them had to deal with the specific selection terms and this is essentially when the government goes to the courts and says this is the piece we want to get information from people related to the specific term. the original bill essentially gave examples of what those terms would be that said, it could be my phone number, could be my address, but with the bill has more broad language and privacy groups are worried that this would be much more mass collection instead of going to the court saying we want rob's phone number, privacy groups say it could be an entire area code, zip code, everything associated with that particular piece of information. >> our viewers got a chance to watch some o

srennivasan: there has been some concern about the lack of or presence of an advocate that in that fisa courtkeep an eye on the nsa that is not going to be in this version of the bill. >> this version, the foreign surveillance court meets in secret and hears only from the government before issuing secret decisions. so the government says we need more power and here is our experience of the law. and there is no one of there to say wait, your interpretation of the law is not taking this into account, et cetera. and so part of the fallout from these leaks and understanding what the survey licence court has signed off on in some of this aggressive legal theories about government power in the years since 9/11 has lead to this proposal that we need to have some kind of a mechanism so there is adversarial process, someone in there who is picking apart the government arguments. and there have been calls for a very strong public advocate, an office of the public advocate who would have security clearance and would weigh in behind closed door, still, but on behalf of the public from a civil liberties a

. >> was it under a fisa court order? >> i'm not going to get into that. to the best of my knowledge, it's still a classified program and i'm not here to divulge national security information. >> one of the big stories this week: the national security agency's collection... >> narrator: news stories on warrantless wiretapping brought unwanted attention to the telecom companies. >> mr. whitacre, has at&t provided customer information to any law enforcement agency? >> senator, we protect the privacy of our customers and we follow the law. that's all i can say about that. >> are you declining to answer my question, mr. whitacre? >> we follow the law, senator. >> does at&t provide customer information to any law enforcement agency? >> we follow the law, senator. >> that is not an answer. >> at&t, verizon, the bell phone companies, have seen themselves in a kind of partnership with the government for almost 100 years. >> i'm telling you we don't violate the law. we follow the law. >> that's a legal conclusion. >> for almost 70 years, the government guaranteed t

i have repeatedly during my tenure in congress actually voted to rein in and redefine the fisa court and fisa responsibilities. and so -- i think we have more work to do. i think if anything, all of the news we have all endured over these last months about the national security agency, really tells us in a deep way that there are things we have to do to rein in and provide oversight as members of congress in what the responsibilities of the nsa are. >> the nsa's method has changed over time with the advancement of technology. >> change in technology. technology back then -- nods nod -- [inaudible] -- occasional telegrams but nothing more than that. today there's -- the nsa are limited in terms of who they can eavesdrop on. a difficulty for me is dropping hard wires in people's houses. the technology -- back in those days, and today the technology is -- >> access data communication and sell you already communications. >> edwards snowden released thousands of documents that reveals the true nate tower of the nsa to everybody. not just the american public. >> i don't whack has done is et

government will have to go to a fisa sa court, and have a search criteria, no longer is it collecting all data but a search term. the search for million of americans phone records. that all thing from the 1990s, it depends on what the definition of "is" is. how others interpret it. the core concern for civil liberties folks is the more you create vagueness in the law the more some president or some executive not today not tomorrow but five years from now ten years from now will be able to take advantage of that do what they want to do if the language is too vague. >> opponents are saying it's just too broad, the government could say it's limiting search to something as wide as a zip code and by limiting it in that massive way, that could allow records in that whole zip code to be examined. do you think it gives the nsa more latitude than it should have? >> it seems that way. i prefer more precise language. i'm a security person. we're not the the first to face terrorism. countries pass laws and what you find is those laws are easy to pass and difficult to pull back. when there are exc

this with regard to this spying case of 15 judges approve the majority of them were secrets of the fisa court that is not due process as well but also the memo written in by a david barron is not a judicial opinion it was not written by anybody independent of the president. on multiple occasions they have justified in the memo argues that to process can be decided by internal deliberations of the executive branch. the comedienne steven colbert mach to this and wrote trial by jury. trial by fire brought papers scissors. who cares is just means there is a process. right? first president meets his advisers to decide to he will kill then kills them it is actually called terror tuesday with flash cards and power point presentation is. a colleague of david barron writes there is no precedent for the idea that due process could be satisfied by a secret internal process within the executive branch. said to those of my colleagues to come down here today to stamp of approval on someone who i believe disrespects the bill of rights realize other professors are colleagues disagree. and you cannot have to

well, the judges were in secret, the majority of them, in the fisa court. and that's not due process as well. but also the memo that was written by david barron, as also recounted by glenn greenwald, was not written by anyone independent of the president. on multiple occasions, they have justified and the memo argues that due process can be decided by internal deliberations of the executive branch. the comedian steven colbert mocked this and wrote -- or presented, "trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper, scissors, who cares? first the president meet wses his advisors, decides who he is going to kill and then kills them. it is actually called terror tuesday with flashcards and powerpoint presentation." noel felledberg writes that there is no precedent for the idea that due process could be satisfied by some secret internal process within the executive branch. so to those of my colleagues who will come on down here today and just stamp approval on someone who i believe disrespects the bill of rights realize that other esteemed prefers and colleagues of har

too much gathering, perhaps not gathering the right information, that's why we need to reform the fisa court, that's why we need to have a range of other changes that allow us to take this work in progress and make it fit in a nice way into our war against terrorism without diminishing civil liberties. i think we can do it. we've done it with other technologies in the past. let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. let's not restrict ourselves from using our tremendous technological advantage that we've worked so hard to achieve. let's work to strike the appropriate balance. >> so, glenn, i mean, to understand your argument, can you see a policy where bulk data exists that strikes the right balance? >> no. there is no bulk data. the indiscriminate mass collection, keeping track of who it is that you're talking to, who's calling you and who is e-mailing you, and the government, a legitimate government, has no business monitoring and surveilling entire populations who are guilty of absolutely nothing. there is this attempt to suggest that, well there are different kinds of surveillance