Fox News "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace" - Transcript: NSA Surveillance and Edward Snowden Asylum

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

WALLACE: James Rosen, starting off our coverage today.

The terror alert comes as Russia has granted NSA leaker Edward Snowden temporary asylum. And there are growing demands in Congress to impose new limits on government surveillance of Americans.

Joining us now to discuss all of this -- in New York, General Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA and CIA. And here in Washington, Republican Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, who led and effort to restrict the NSA's data collection.

General, based on your long experience, what's going on here with the U.S. closing almost two dozen embassies and consulates across the middle east and also this extraordinary global travel alert for August? And what does it say about our standing now in the Middle East?

GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN, FORMER HEAD OF NSA, CIA: Well, Chris, as you know, I'm out of government, so I'm not reading any of the cables, but I can only imagine what it would have taken while I was in government in terms of the stack of evidence that would have been required for our government to take the kinds of actions that you and James just described.

And so, this looks serious. The only thing we are missing, as both of you suggested, is the geography. And therefore, we are taking caution and warning folks between Algeria and Bangladesh. Clearly, this is a serious thing. Also kind of points out that this Al Qaeda danger is not yet over, and at least elements of Al Qaeda aren't yet totally on the run.

WALLACE: I was going to ask about that. Does this show that Al Qaeda is stronger than President Obama has led us to believe over the last year or so? And in a sense, is there a danger that by reacting the way we have -- as you say -- closing facilities from Algeria to Bangladesh, that it only empowers Al Qaeda?

HAYDEN: Well, that's the cost of oh doing business. I understand the argument that it seems to, as you say, empower them more than perhaps they are really capable of performing. On the other hand, you have a real danger to Americans. You want to be cautious.

And let me add an additional factor in here. The announcement itself may also be designed to interrupt Al Qaeda planning, to put them off stride. To put them on the back foot, to let them know that we're alert and that we're on at least to a portion of this plot line.

WALLACE: Congressman Amash, how do you see the closing of our embassies, diplomatic facilities across the Muslim world -- as a sensible response or as an overreaction?

REP. JUSTIN AMASH, R-MI: Well, I don't have any more facts than anyone else here. I think the administration needs to take whatever steps it deems appropriate.

But it's precisely because we live in this dangerous world that we need protections like the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution put it in place, precisely because they were worried you'd have national security justifications for violating people's rights. They weren't worried that the government was going to say, well, we want to come to your home to host a nice dinner party or we want your papers because we want to find some recipes. They are worried about national security justifications for violating people's rights and in a dangerous world, you need the Fourth Amendment. You need the Constitution.

WALLACE: Well, we're going to get to the heart of this debate about the NSA and whether or not there should be restrictions in a moment. But let me ask you, first, Congressman, about the other big news development this week. That, of course, is Russia granting temporary asylum to the NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

When he gives up secrets to other countries about information, programs that have been approved by the president, approved by Congress, approved and overseen by the courts, is he a whistleblower? Because you've suggested he is. Is he a whistleblower or a traitor?

AMASH: Well, we don't know the facts about what he's doing and what kind of information he's given up. But I certainly think that without his doing what he did, members of Congress would not have really known about it. There's allegations that this information was given to Congress. Of course, Congress passed the Patriot Act. They passed the FISA Amendments Act.

But members of Congress were not really aware on the whole about what these programs were being used for, the extent to which they were being used. Members of the Intelligence Committee were told. But members who are rank and file members really didn't have the information.

WALLACE: So, you still consider him a whistleblower?

AMASH: Yes.

WALLACE: Because?

AMASH: Well, he --

WALLACE: I mean, he had signed a note. He had said he wasn't going to give up these secrets and he gave up the secrets.

AMASH: Yes. As I said, he may be doing things overseas that we would find problematic, that we would find dangerous. We'll find those facts out over time. But as far as Congress is concerned, sure, he's a whistleblower. He told us what we needed to know.

WALLACE: General Hayden, it isn't just Congressman Amash. According to a new poll, 55 percent of Americans now regard Edward Snowden as a whistleblower, not as a traitor.

A couple of questions. One, are they wrong? And secondly, in your mind, how tough should President Obama get with Russia, get with Vladimir Putin now that they have given Snowden temporary asylum?

HAYDEN: Yes, well, first of all, Chris, put me in the 45 percent in that poll who doesn't believe he's a whistleblower at all.

Look, a whistleblower is someone who raises concerns within our government in order to affect change. There is no evidence whatsoever that this young man warned anyone, went to his supervisor, his supervisor's boss, even to the congressmen. No evidence of that whatsoever. What he did was go to Glenn Greenwald and some other news outlets and publish information that he may, in his own conscience, believe we need to be concerned about. But what he did was not tell the appropriate authorities. He told the world, including our enemies. And he's made it more difficult for our security services to keep America safe.

Now, with regard to the Russians, I think I agree with the senator from New York. It's a bit of a slap in the face. I know the administration is reconsidering the visit in Moscow after the G-20 with President Putin. Frankly, I don't think President Obama should go. And maybe it must betrays my own personal background, Chris, that I think it's jump ball whether he should go to the St. Petersburg for the G-20 at all.

WALLACE: Let's get because you've been on the fringes of it. Let's get directly into this question of the NSA, what it's doing, whether there should be new limits.

General, the House almost passed, as you know, last week a measure offered by Congressman Amash that would have put an end to the kind of blanket collection of phone records of all Americans and instead limit that only to information on Americans who are under specific investigation for links to terrorism. On a practical level, General, would that have hamstrung you?

HAYDEN: Oh, Chris, it would have turned the program on its head.

Look, this isn't -- this program, the metadata program that we are talking about here, isn't about targeting Americans. It's about trying to divide, trying to decide with the lightest touch possible who in America -- legally, operationally, ethically -- should be targeted for increased interest from the FBI or from our intelligence services.

Look, this is metadata, business records. The court has held it had no expectation of privacy. And therefore, what the agencies have done is go down this path, frankly informing members of Congress. I read the letters released this week in 2009 and 2011 that specifically invited members of Congress to come read what the government was doing, and the phrase in the letter was bulk metadata collection.

WALLACE: All right. Let me bring in Congressman Amash.

Sir, you just heard the general say that Americans' privacy is not being violated, and that your amendment that you almost passed, I mean, it only lost by a few votes, would make it harder for them to get the information they need about terrorists.

AMASH: Well, we don't have any evidence that it would make it that much more difficult. We're not going to have a perfect system, you can't have a perfect system unless you have people under constant lock down being monitored. And even in that system, you have essentially a police state, and I think you've run the risk of having a much more dangerous society. You have senators like Senator Widen, and Udall and others who have said and, Senator Leahy, who have said, they don't think this program is very effective. As to whether Americans' privacies being violated, just ask my constituents. If I go to a town hall or meeting, they will tell you that their privacy is being violated.

The court case that the Justice Department and the intelligence community rely on so heavily is a court case from the 1970s where one person was under suspicion for a limited period of time and they collected his records. That's very different from collecting the phone records and other data of every single American in the United States.

WALLACE: Well, General, let's get to this and answer these two concerns, to the congressman's constituents in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Explain why their privacy is not being violated and, specifically, why do you need this information on every phone call that's made by every American -- again, just the fact of that the phone call, not the content -- why do you need that to fight terror?

HAYDEN: Well, let's start with the legal premise here, Chris, and I realize Smith versus Maryland in 1979 was about a very specific ant discrete case. But the fact of the matter is, the court held that metadata, in essence our phone bills, has no expectation of privacy. And that's why we in the intelligence community felt it was the lightest as I said, the lightest touch possible, to try to divine who in America might be the enemy inside the gate.

Now, what we do with it, Chris, is important. I understand the congressman and his constituents' concerns, so they would want to know -- all right, you've got this ocean of data, what do you do with it? And that's important.

Look, the government has lots of oceans of data. The government demands that I tell them every penny I make and how I made it. That's also in one sense an invasion of privacy. But there is a larger national purpose which that serves.

The same applies to metadata collection, what do we do with the data. And what we do, Chris, let me give you an example. We roll up a terrorist cell -- let's say Yemen, which James Rosen referred to in his piece.

We roll up a terrorist cell there. We find a cell phone about which we had no knowledge prior to that raid. We take the cell phone number. Metaphorically, we approach the ocean of data and simply say, has this phone been in contact with any of these phones inside this metadata database.

WALLACE: Let me bring, Congressman Amash in.

It sounds reasonable.

AMASH: Well, you're collecting the phone records of every single American in the United States. It's important to understand that what the Justice Department and intelligence community are relying on is a third party doctrine. They are saying that because you've given your data, because it's shared with a third party, it becomes a public property.

WALLACE: The phone company, because they have a record that you called me.

AMASH: And it's important to understand that it then goes beyond metadata. So, we start with metadata but the government is not suggesting that it can't collect your actual communications. It can't collect your content.

Under this doctrine, they certainly can collect your content just as they can collect your metadata. And metadata itself can tell you a whole host of information about a person's life with the kind of computer power we have today.

WALLACE: Let me, just quickly, we've got less than a minute left, so I'm going to ask you to do this quickly, both of you.

General, rightly or wrongly, it seems clear that there is a move under foot represented by Congressman Amash to put new restrictions on the NSA. It seems that's going to happen.

I want to put up a couple of the ideas that have been suggested -- creation of a special counsel to challenge the government's surveillance request in the secret FISA court, reducing how long phone records can be retained from five years to two, releasing information each year on how many warrants the government seeks.

Briefly, General, could you live with any and/or all of those?

HAYDEN: There are several there I think the intelligence community is looking at right now, Chris, and to make Americans more comfortable about the programs.

I've got to add, Chris, it doesn't make Americans more comfortable about the program to misrepresent it. This does not authorize the collection of content, period.

WALLACE: Congressman, you heard those three suggestions I have. Would that satisfy your concerns, or do you just want an end to this bulk collection of records?

AMASH: I think we've got a whole host of ideas out there. I've got -- they're called the Liberty Act.

Chairman Goodlatte is very committed to working through this process and I think we're going to have a lot of good bills come to the Judiciary Committee.

WALLACE: Congressman Amash, General Hayden, I want to thank you both for coming in today.

HAYDEN: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: We'll stay on top of all these issues. Thank you both.

AMASH: Thanks, Chris.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source