the internet metadata program. then when we're discussing this telephone metadata program, the director first came out and said there's 54 cases where it helps prevent 54 attacks or something like that. and then it was down to like 32 or whatever. and then all of a sudden we found out he was only talking about the metadata program, the 215 program. he was talking about the prison program. where you knock on the front door of the agency, the company with a warrant or in order from the fisa court. so when it came down to the actual metadata program, it came down to one success. one success. and actually the deputy director actually admitted this on -- just left the nsa, admitted it on public radio about a week ago, it was just this one case in the case was a guy in san diego who sent $8000 to some group in somalia. he didn't even have anything to do with the united states but that's the one success for collecting all your telephone records since 2001. so that's what i really hope is that we could start starting under

said there is a program that collects telephone metadata? what came out in testimony earlier this week is our board had been briefed on the 215 program, and the person who was briefing us was hit by a car on a bike and it had to be rescheduled. we operate in an area where there is a lot of classified information. are able to push for declassification to help the american people understand a program. if we find aspects of the program or the entire program where we think there is a public going towe consider the intelligence community and saying, please declassify these programs so we can have a fuller .ational debate we do not want a secret law where the american people cannot determine whether a program has been authorized. we also urge the government to report more on information collection activities. moreo let customers know about the government requests they are achieving. tech companies have reached an agreement to disclose more about what kinds of requests they get from the government. >> are there any programs you are pushing for more

metadata program? >> i think the decision to spend such an amount of time and -- >> as you know more than a dozen federal judges, most on the foreign intelligence surveillance court and u.s. district court concluded that the patriot act does provide authority for the metadata program. the president's review group who appeared before this committee came to that conclusion, and the attorney general who also was here just last month strongly holds that position. the board was split 3-2 on this. i just wanted to know why was the majority wrong on this issue? >> well, i -- >> in your view? >> i think there's two questions there. first, whether we should have engaged in such an extensive legal analysis. as you have noted this program is subject to extensive judicial oversight and it's currently subject to ongoing litigation in three district courts. we are a board of extraordinarily limited resources, particularly at the time we were considering this. the decision to do this both statutory analysis and also

metadata program? >> i think the decision to spend such an amount of time and -- >> as you know more than a dozen federal judges, most on the foreign intelligence surveillance court and u.s. district court concluded that the patriot act does provide authority for the metadata program. the president's review group who appeared before this committee came to that conclusion, and the attorney general who also was here just last month strongly holds that position. the board was split 3-2 on this. i just wanted to know why was the majority wrong on this issue? >> well, i -- >> in your view? >> i think there's two questions there. first, whether we should have engaged in such an extensive legal analysis. as you have noted this program is subject to extensive judicial oversight and it's currently subject to ongoing litigation in three district courts. we are a board of extraordinarily limited resources, particularly at the time we were considering this. the decision to do this both statutory analysis and also

so, for instance, on metadata storage. you said it should go to third party or private kind of companies. it shouldn't be kept by the government. one of the other review panels had a slight different review which is that it couldn't be kept full-stop. i wonder why you'd stop short on hat? >> to state our recommendation, we believe that the meta data, that is who the phone numbers are from, and -- who's calling whom and when, the government shouldn't be holding that data. in a free society, if we're engaged in a risk management exercise, there are undue risks to privacy and civil liberty with the government holding that data. we think that the information should be held privately, which has a safeguard against the risks of abuse which in american history have not been absent. not in the recent past, not in the last years, but under president nixon and president johnson there were risks from surveillance. and before. so we don't urge that the information should suddenly be held by the phone companies. that's not what we urge

s metadata program. in an interview last week, you noted that at least 15 judges on dozens of occasions have said that the program itself is legal. that's correct? >> that's correct. >> to be clear, is it your position that the collection of metadata under section 215 of the patriot act is legal and that the oversight board's conclusion on this point is wrong? >> that is my view. >> that's mine too. as someone on the intelligence committee and who helped put this through. in your judgment has the n.s.a. abused or misused its capability to collect and analyze telephone metadata? >> i think the n.s.a. has acted in a way that's consistent with the law but as i indicated i think that's part one of the analysis, part two is whether or not we are getting from the acquisition and retention of that data material that is sufficient to deal with the civil liberties and privacy concerns others have expressed. >> but they haven't misused or abused it? >> that's what the president asked us to look at. >> one more que

the only thing the section 215 phone metadata program, bulk collection which means mass surveillance,program was in stopping or detecting $8,500 wire transfer from a cab driver in california. is this kind of review where insiders go, we don't need these programs. these programs don't make us safe. they take her terminus amount of resources to run. they offer us no value. the national security agency operates under the president's executive authority alone. he can and or modified or change the policies at any time. >> that is edward snowden reacting to president obama's speech asked month. rainey reitman, your group gave obama a score of 3.5 out of 12 points that you wanted to see him make in reforming nsa surveillance. where do you think you met the bar and where do you think he failed? when it came to obama's promises for nsa reform, i want to acknowledge he did do a couple of things. wasthing clearly did do he worked to reform the fisa court -- the secret court that signs off on the nsa surveillance programs right now and has been heavily criticized by civil liberties groups includi

so the judge accepted that argument and that is the argument for metadata.ecause the nsa could not tell where those phone calls were coming from. then you have two question everyone's metadata in the united states. so you have this in one place. and so then you can go through it. so you don't have another 9/11 argument. and so this is -- these are things that are somewhat complicated. they are not usable in a soundbite on intelligent. but they are critical to the issue of metadata and writing about it in the journalist community. because a lot of this, a lot of them are saying are you kidding? we have all this technology out there and you can't tell us where this is coming from. and everyone has caller id. so it's not over yet. so we had a split decision with the judge in new york and one in washington and there's another case coming up and i asked about her playing a role in this case. and this brought by the foundation which focuses on the legality of the metadata and so forth. there's another little twist as well and they are focusing on another issue whi

the internet metadata program. and then when we're discussing this telephone metadata program, the director first came out and said there's 54 cases where this was -- it helped prevent 54 attacks or something like that. and then it was down to, like, 32 or whatever. and then all of a sudden we found out he wasn't really talking about the metadata program, the 215 program, he was talking about the prism program. and where you knock on the front door of the agency, the company with a warrant or an order from the fisa court. so when it came town to the actual -- down to the actual metaday program, it came down to one success. one success. and, actually, the deputy director actually admitted this on the -- the deputy direct canner, just left nsa, engel, admitted it on public radio about a week ago. it was one case, a guy in san diego who sent $8,000 to some group in somalia. i mean, it didn't have anything to do with the united states, but that's their one success for collecting all your telephone records since 2001. s

and with respect to the policy questions in the metadata program? >> i think the decision to spend such an amount of time and -- >> as you know more than a dozen federal judges on the foreign intelligence is reported to the patriot act does provide authority for the metadata program. on the president review group that appeared before the committee they came to that conclusion and the attorney general who was also here just last month strongly holds that position. the board was split on this and i just wanted to know why was the majority wrong on this issue in your view? >> i think there is two questions. first whether we should have engaged in such an extensive and legal analyst us. as you have noted, the program is subject to the judicial oversight and is currently subject to ongoing litigation in the three district courts. we are a board of extremely limited resources particularly at the time that we are considering this. the decision to do this both in the statutory analysis, and also in a fourth amendment analysis that was prospective and only h

in other words, metadata is being used right now to target people for killing.orry, they're not listening to your phone calls, they're running an algorithm to determine whether they're going to blow someone up. "in one tactic the nsa "in one tactic the nsa geo locates the sim card or hand set of the suspected terrorist's mobile phone enabling the cia and u.s. military to conduct night raids." we are targeting and killing individuals without knowing for sure who the person we are killing is. because we are literally targeting sim cards and blowing up whoever's attached to hem. joining me now, jeremy scahill, just started up a new digital magazine called "the intercept" and also writer and producer of the film "dirty wars." nominated for an academy award based on his book by the same name. i think i understand basically what you're saying, we're actually targeting sim cards. the thing we're targeting, going after and sending a drone strike at is a cell phone, essentially, a chip inside a cell phone, as opposed to this individual who is 27 and we know trained here

european telephone metadata.se revelations raised serious questions about what we, the american people, were willing to trade for our security. those who stood with me in defense of our constitution and the fourth amendment were accused of being naÏve. we were accused of being ignorant. by those advocates of mass snooping saying after all what do you have to hide? mass spying did not attack us marathon bombers or the christmas day bomber. it did not protect us from the times square armor, the shooting at an army recruiter center or the shooting at fort hood. when deputy attorney general james cole was asked how many criminal cases resulted from the use of this surveillance dragnet, he said there may be one. america's time of financial crisis with billions of dollars spent to support this gigantic secret snooping operation, a simple cost-benefit analysis of these programs would determine enough toe effective warrant mass amounts of funding they received. i could think of at least one far-flung consulate in libya t

we issued a report recently about the metadata program and surveillance report. the board voted and issued our report. we also briefed the president before his speech with our recommendations. >> i think that is where ellen wants to pick up. >> your board got constituted and met at a very opportune time, right in the midst of the leaks by edward snowden, who put a huge spotlight on several important surveillance programs. one of them is section 215, as you mention. your board came out with a 238 page report last month. i would say it is arguably the most extensive analysis of the legal underpinnings and the utility of the 215 program, which is, as most of the public now knows, a program where the nsa collects metadata, data about phone calls of americans, and puts it in a database, to search through them when they have a suspected terrorist's phone number, to search for links to that number and detect plots and networks. your board came with the conclusion and recommendation that the program was illegal, did not meet the statute that it was based on. you also rec

we know that metadata is captured. some metadata is okay to have for a particular period of time. but if you capture all the metadata for a long period of time, that will raise constitutional questions. this issue is already before the courts in some different contexts. and those cases will probably reach the supreme court. this is more of a political action than an action that has a chance of actually succeeding on its own merits. >> and the district court level, some courts have said it's constitutional. others have suggested not constitutional. but they say they have what, more than 300,000 people who actually signed some sort of document saying they would like to be part of this class action lawsuit. >> it's not enough just to have people sign a document. you have to show they have been actually harmed. and, in fact, both decisions that were rendered by district courts are wrong. because one decision said, essentially, everything is constitutional. and the other decision said essentially everything is unconstitutio

we're only collecting metadata but then on the other hand we hear by the way we use metadata can kill people so they can have it both ways either this is really interim intrusive information that can get to who you are or they're killing people willingly yeah you're right so which is. well i would appreciate if glenn in jeremy can figure that out for us because you know like in the town above it seems like it's probably a little bit of both actually you know it's the. clinton germy exit. each of us in this new article is that the only people who are aware of these programs are the people that we're targeting they know how to circumvent it it's the american people in the average citizens who don't know what the n.s.a. is doing and then they say you know we can't tell anybody this is a secret because somehow the terrorists will be able to have they're already adapting and if they know why can't we know there's apparently another american citizen the president is trying to decide whether or not to assassinate without a trial and without a conviction. you know that we this happened last y

death by metadata.might be replacing human intelligence on the ground. >> interesting stuff coming from a good source. i want to get right to it. it is an interesting thing from an interesting publication. there is a publication called the intercept. i want to talk about your story. i want to talk about the publication. let's start with the story that you came out with. it is something that is near and dear to the technology company. that technological intelligence is being used for drone strikes. >> a lot of americans are under the perception that with the drone program that we know the individuals who are involved with terrorists. what we found in our investigation that in part is based on two sources from within the u.s. military that worked on the program, as well as documents provided to us by the nsa whistleblower, edward snowden. in many cases, what they are doing is simply using the metadata provided by the nsa satellite technology or cell phone towers that have been put on the bottom of drones

data and metadata of a person and it doesn't stop in maryland there is legislation like this in the works and other states like washington utah and missouri for more on the state's fight i joined earlier i was joined earlier with a shot head to tar the executive director of the bill of rights defense committee. in maryland in utah in particular it would have a special force because the bill essentially denies state resources to the n.s.a. and in the states where the n.s.a. has data centers like maryland like utah that would include pulling the plug on public utilities like the water that i say uses to cool the servers amounting to two million gallons per day in the utah bluffdale utah data center as well as the electricity that they used to power the servers so even while congress decides what to do and the courts decide what to do when the president continues to step closer you know one hopes towards the positions he espoused as a campaign candidate back in two thousand and eight the states can take matters into their own hands and that's exactly what we're seeing in maryland utah

so, for instance, on metadata storage. you said it should go to third party or private kind of companies. it shouldn't be kept by the government. one of the other review panels had a slight different review which is that it couldn't be kept full-stop. i wonder why you'd stop short on that? >> to state our recommendation, we believe that the meta data, that is who the phone numbers are from, and -- who's calling whom and when, the government shouldn't be holding that data. in a free society, if we're engaged in a risk management exercise, there are undue risks to privacy and civil liberty with the government holding that data. we think that the information should be held privately, which has a safeguard against the risks of abuse which in american history have not been absent. not in the recent past, not in the last years, but under president nixon and president johnson there were risks from surveillance. and before. so we don't urge that the information should suddenly be held by the phone companies. that's not what we urg

intelligence, could have come in and announced that this program section 215, the collection of metadata, the surveillance on americans, they

>> this is effectively what amounts to death by metadata. we're living in an area of precrime where we're using analysis of signals, intercepts of the activity that is registered on behalf of a s.i.m. card or a telephone handset. we don't have evidence that the individuals holding that handset are in fact the individuals that we're targeting. and so what is effectively happening is instead of confirming that target x is in fact this individual that the u.s. is trying to kill, they are effectively killing the cell phones and this is a system that is rife with error and the u.s. has basically outsourced its human intelligence capacity and it's now relying in some cases 90% or more on the use of signals intelligence or military intelligence and that leaves an area for filling of phones not

this is a significant additional safeguard against potential abuses of metadata. additionally, the president changed to the program that the metadata be held by the telephone companies. he apparently believes this can be done without compromising the program's operational value. there are many questions about whether such an arrangement is desirable or even possible, but the administration is currently exploring options implementing this change, and it's my understanding they're supposed to have a report ready by march 28. it was against this landscape that this board before us issued its report a few weeks ago. the report contains a number of recommendations that i'm interested in hearing more about. for example, many of the recommendations in the report concerns increased transparency. a very worthy goal. all but one was adopted unanimously by the board reporting today to us. over -- moreover, they are similar to the reforms that the president proposed. additionally, the report recommends that the fisa court be able to call upon a pool of advocates from outside

having been transparent from the outset after 9/11 which is the genesis of the 215 program metadata and the american people and their elected representatives need to cover this gap. he said we have been more transparent we wouldn't have these problems and edward snowden's leak's would have had much of an impact on the american people at the intelligence community would have been more transparent. does the president agree with that assessment? >> well i certainly don't think director clapper is saying anything that should come as a surprise. it has gone all the way back to the event that led to the creation of some of these programs. >> both administrations i should point out.

so, for instance, on metadata storage. you said it should go to third party or private kind of companies. it shouldn't be kept by the government. one of the other review panels had a slight different review which is that it couldn't be kept full-stop. i wonder why you'd stop short on that? >> to state our recommendation, we believe that the meta data, that is who the phone numbers are from, and -- who's calling whom and when, the government shouldn't be holding that data. in a free society, if we're engaged in a risk management exercise, there are undue risks to privacy and civil liberty with the government holding that data. we think that the information should be held privately, which has a safeguard against the risks of abuse which in american history have not been absent. not in the recent past, not in the last years, but under president nixon and president johnson there were risks from surveillance. and before. so we don't urge that the information should suddenly be held by the phone companies. that's not what we urg

and european telephone metadata. these revelations raise serious questions about what we, the american people, were willing to trade for our security. those who stood with me in defense of our constitution and particularly the fourth amendment to that constitution, were accused of being naive. and we were accused of being ignorant by those advocates of mass snooping saying, after all, what do you have to hide? mass spying did not protect us from the boston marathon bombers, or the christmas day bomber. it didn't protect us from the times square bomber, the shooting at an army recruiter center in arkansas or the shooting at ft. hood. in fact, when deputy attorney general james cole was asked how many criminal cases resulted from the use of this surveillance dragnet he said there may be one. in america's time of financial crisis, with billions of dollars being spent to support this gigantic secret snooping operation, a simple cost benefit analysis of these programs would determine if they're effective enough to warrant

they are targeting people because of the metadata activity and not necessarily that they know they arerorist involved with criminal activity. >> the notion that technology has its limits, it is the human intelligence versus a signal intelligence. of the the mastery mastery of technology over human intelligence? some form of another, they have used a signals. and as a was been a part of u.s. military operation. what we're seeing now with the rise of the use of drones and the ability of the nsa to tap into fiber-optic cables around the world to penetrate phone networks and to track sim cards within a goofy of the user, i think we are entering an age of pre-crime. where people can have a pr ofile build on them. is it a night identity, we target them based on the activity that they are engaged in on the internet or with their handheld devices. ofand also seems that sales military businesses is a lot -- they are providing the tools for the kind of research by the nsa. >> this is a booming industry. amazon was talking about using drones to deliver their products. let's remember one thing we

s surveillance of phone metadata not e-mail communications and the court will not be looking at whether section two fifteen of the patriot act is constitutional rather it will be focusing on whether the n.s.a.'s controversial program falls in line with the fourth amendment we will ask the question in court whether a single warrant can apply to the records of every american phone user all of the job without limits without individualisation. ken cuccinelli virginia's former attorney general is serving as the lead counsel for the case he says this trial will be different from the federal case late last year in which a judge ruled that the n.s.a.'s mass collection of phone data is constitutional here's what he had to say most times this question has been addressed overwhelmingly it has been on what's called an ex parte basis that means there was no one to argue the other side there was no one there to defend the constitution vigorously cuccinelli went on to say that this would be one of the rare occasions when we have a debate in front of a judge who will then be able to make that ultimate

ta, is the nsaa providing metadata and phone tracking for lethal phone strikes -- drone strikes?ce on the may be replaced, according to a new report. cory johnson has more on that. >> really interesting stuff. jeremy joins me, writer and cofounder of a new publication called "the intercept." i want to talk about your story and i want to talk about the publication. maybe we can get to your academy award nomination with "dirty wars" as well. you have come up with something that is near and dear to the technology company, the idea that technological intelligence only is being used by the nsa to order drone strikes. >> i think a lot of people are under the perception that with the drone program, we know the individuals we are tracking and they're involved in acts of terrorism, and drone strikes are a better alternative to sending in u.s. military forces. documents provided to us by edward snowden -- but we determined is that in many cases , what the u.s. military or cia is using is the metadata provided by the nsa's satellite technology or fake cell phone towers that have been put on

the nsa identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell phone tracking technologies, and unreliable tactic that has resulted in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people. the disclosures made in the first article by journalists jeremy scahill and glenn greenwald for their new journalism venture, first look media. particularly the intercept, which launched today. we will speak with them after the headlines. tens of thousands of people marched in raleigh, north carolina on saturday to protest the far right policies of the state's republican government. the moral march was an outgrowth of last years moral monday's protest, 13 weeks of actions against what critics call a republican assault on poor people, the unemployed, voting rights, education, the environment, health care, and women's rights. protest organizer reverend william barber, the head of the naacp and north carolina, says republican policies have forced marginalized communities to stand together. >> we have been hauled together to fight against a dangerous agenda of extremist laws by the ultraconservative

the recommendations coming forward are coming forward about the metadata. third-party people handling them. the underlying systems of how we are going to approach this in the future, and it will happen again, is not being addressed. when these things have come out before, what happened was you had a frank church that came forward with a new regulatory structure on how these things are going to be handled. congress has been completely silent. >> well, not completely silent. you saw senator wyden in the interchange with mr. clapper this week being vocal. i think that -- i agree with much of what you just said, but what is tremendously unhelpful, i think, is to have statements, as in the hearing the other day, saying that snowden's disclosures have done great harm to the national security without any kind of specific information that helps the public, let alone journalists, evaluate the truth of that statement. it is just, to me, troubling. it reminds me -- you know, history is often a guide in these situations. during the pentagon papers case, the solicitor g

and european metadata.these revelations are for you questions about what we, the american people, or willing to trade for our security. those who stood with me in defense of our constitution and particularly the fourth amendment to the constitution, were accused of being naÏve. we were accused of being ignorance. by those advocates, they say will after all, if what is the height two now they do not protect us from the christmas day bomber or the marathon palmar. and the shooting at fort hood or in arkansas. general james cole asked how many criminal cases have resulted from the use of the surveillance dragnet and he said that there may be one. but america's time of financial crisis, with billions of dollars being spent to support this gigantic snooping operation, with the triple cost benefit analysis would determine that it was effective in that to one massive amounts of funding. on the night of september 11 i can think that we might've been able to use some of those resources. in a free country, it is a st

my question is, is that the strongest defense of the utility of the 215 metadata program that can be mounted? or is there something out that we should keep in mind? >> no. it is the primary utility for the fbi. its agility is its greatest valley. it's a useful tool for that reason. >> if i might add to that. i think, as i have said before, i don't think plots foiled is necessary -- necessarily the only metric that could be used to the potential value of section 215 metadata, which is an important tool. last summer when we had a number of diplomatic facilities in the mideast that were closed because what appeared to be potential terrorist threats, it turned up some number of selectors that pointed in the direction of the united states. so using this tool we were able to eliminate the fact that there was no terrorist nexus and there was no domestic plotting going on. so at least in my mind, that an additional metric apart, the cure plots foiled. and, of course, the program was conceived as result of 9/11 and the inability to track a foreign communicant whose communicacommunica te with

a is sucking up metadata and doing so there is a belief that says metadata is not really covered by fourth amendment stuff. i think a lot of this stuff, if you find it before the snowden period, very small stories. i have a feeling one of the things the intelligence committee may have to do is a better job of saying this is what we do for you. you're going to have to disclose the sources and methods. i am sorry. you're going to have to do some trade-offs of the benefits. the american intelligence can only operate within the space permitted by the american public. he's absolutely right. has the space collapse because of the controversy? no. there's controversy on it. it is going to be incumbent on active leaders. look. i will go back to the washington post. they did a years ago series of top-secret america, a fourth branch of government that operate without supervision. it is like, really? really? no. i think they should have been -- much moree aggressive. my concern was that if newspapers are saying there is a fourth branch of government operating without supervision, that is an attack on

we are not talking about business records and phone metadata. core of thise very country's ability to defend itself. it will threaten the safety and security of our soldiers and marines in the field. a time when they need leadership and clear direction, they must endure what appears to be more regulatory confusion emanating from the administration. for five long years we have written this delays, incoherent and policies that do little for our agencies to do their work. one task force reviews another task force. legal programs are change even though they have done nothing wrong. in decision has had serious negative consequences to the national security of the united states. when it comes to america's current approach, there's only one thing that is certain. clueis our allies have no what our policy is from one day to the next. we just returned from the munich security conference. bilateralghly 10 meetings. to the individual. they expressed frustration over the lack of clarity and u.s. policy when it comes to engagement and rough parts of the worl

a is sucking up metadata and doing so there is a belief that says metadata is not really covered by fourth amendment stuff. i think a lot of this stuff, if you find it before the snowden period, very small stories. i have a feeling one of the things the intelligence committee may have to do is a better job of saying this is what we do for you. you're going to have to disclose the sources and methods. i am sorry. you're going to have to do some trade-offs of the benefits. the american intelligence can only operate within the space permitted by the american public. he's absolutely right. has the space collapse because of the controversy? no. there's controversy on it. it is going to be incumbent on active leaders. look. i will go back to the washington post. they did a years ago series of top-secret america, a fourth branch of government that operate without supervision. it is like, really? really? no. i think they should have been -- much moree aggressive. my concern was that if newspapers are saying there is a fourth branch of government operating without supervision, that is an attack on

>> guest: i think it is going on the metadata and the issue of the u.s. surveillance to the phone records. i think that is valuable and fruitful and i think it had come about in a different way and i don't think that honestly would have happened without the snowden disclosures that he disclosed so much else. so much else that had nothing to do with america or the american constitution. i think that it is hugely damaging and reprehensible. >> host: do you think it is damaging because the technology cannot adapt quick enough to learn how to do things differently, or what is so damaging about it? you just said many of these countries are going to continue working with us. >> guest: inevitably, but i mean it will have a chilling effect for a while. they would be more reluctant to share what they have. and why to live is not going to be permanent, you know, what happens if there is some sort of information out there about a terrorist attack and for whatever reason because of the political climate, because of what snowden created, that information is not passed

but be i think metadata which is what they call the headers or in the case of a telephone who you all or how long you talk for, metaa data ought to be protected as well. it doesn't mean you share it with the world, including your friendly government. >> host: when you look back at the supreme court, who are some of the justices that you most admire, some that you don't? >> guest: i actually don't have very many heroes on the supreme court. most of them i probably am sort of tepid to lukewarm about. i would have to say the first justice harlan who wrote the dissenting opinion in the civil rights cases which was otherwise unanimous besides his vote was -- and also a dissenting opinion in plessy v. ferguson on behalf of a very important reading of the 13th and 14th amendment, he is somebody who at least at that stage in his career i admire. also chief justice salmon p. chase who was an anti-slavery lawyer. his nickname when he was a lawyer was the attorney general for runaway slaves. when he became chief justice succeeding the racist justice roger tawny appointed by abraham lincoln, i th

it's not death by metadata, it's death by geotargeting based on specific phones. who is holding the phones when the drone strike happens is an issue to be addressed. it goes to the broader problem of trying to fight the war by remote control and not knowing who the advocate is. >> how do we put people on the ground in yemen, the mountains of pakistan and afghanistan. how do we confirm. using the signals intelligence, is that the only way to do it? >> it's not, and we don't use signals where we operated. we don't rely exclusively on signals intelligence. there's very little stomach for large u.s. investments for troops, money and material in some of these conflict zones. we are trying to find a way to degrade our advocacy and maintain a certain amount of distance. when you rely exclusively on third party sources and governments and signals intelligence, you get into trouble. that's part of the issue that is raised with the report. >> we are joined from montana by brandon bryant. a former sensor operator for the u.s. air force drone program, after leaving the air fo

>> guest: i think the debate is good on the metadata and the issue of u.s. surveillance -- surveillance of u.s. phone records. i think that's valuable, and fruitful. i wish they'd come about it a different way. i don't that would have happened without the snowden disclosures. but he disclosed so much else that had nothing to do with american constitution. i think that it's hugely damaging, and reprehensible. >> host: do you think it's damaging because at the technology cannot adapt quickly enough to do things differently? what is so damaging about it? you have just said that these -- many of these countries are going to continue working with us. >> guest: inevitably, but it will have a chilling effect for a while. there will be more reluctance on their part to share what they have, and while it's not going to be permanent, what happens if there's some information about a terrorist attack, and for whatever reason, because of the political climate, because of what snowden created, that information is not passed? that's what i worry about. >> host: this is my l

the president announced metadata should no longer be stored by the government. he asked the director of the nsa to work to come up with an alternative option. ultimately the decision rested with congress. this senator absolutely opposes contracting out this core government obligation. -- function. what seems to be lost in this conversation is that every day we face a growing threat. it could cost american lives. the terrorist threat remains a real and ongoing. the government wants to protect americans from terrorist attacks. the hard fact is that our national security interest do not change just because public opinion on the issue is fluctuating. collection and clearing of this metadata is not a private sector responsibility. it is a fundamental core government functions. it should remain that way. i am concerned that any change of our current framework would harm national security and privacy. the president has made it clear that he understands our intelligence needs, but i do not believe that he can come up with a better alternative. he just through to you. an

in doing so in the belief that there is a court ruling and a supreme court precedent that says metadata is not covered by fourth amendment stuff. i think a lot of this stuff if you find it before the snowden period small stories page a8 but i have a feeling one of the things the intelligence community may have to do is to do a better job of saying this is what we have to do for you and you will have to disclose sources and methods. i'm sorry. you're going to have to do some trade-offs of the benefit. mike hayden said in an article in foreign affairs the american intelligence can only operate within the space permitted by the american public. it's absolutely right. has this space collapse because of the country but -- no but there is pressure and i think it's incumbent on active intelligence leaders and i think to some degree those of us that are tired of doing other things to make the case that look, again i will go back to the "washington post." a couple of years ago they did that series top-secret america a fourth branch of government that operates without supervision. and it's like,

his reporting partner, jeremy scahill called it, quote, death by metadata and what this does is encompasses two of the programs that obama has expanded while in office and he's had a backtrack on mass surveillance. >> jim sciutto, thanks very much. let's talk about the u.s. drone policy and whether it's ethical to target u.s. citizens with these drone strikes. we're joined by jameel and alan dershowitz. there's no due process, the only information is reliable but then you go ahead and order a drone strike to kell an american citizen. is that right? >> well, there's much debate about whether or not we should be using drones, how we gather the information to determine whether somebody is a combatant but the one thing that shouldn't be part of the debate is whether the person who is a combatant who is trying to kill americans and can't be captured on the ground is an american. that's just a kind of bigotry. if he's subject to under the laws of the war, he shouldn't be shielded from response. we've killed americans in every war that we've fought. many in the second world war. we don't ask them