Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
These programs together with other intelligence.
Have protected the US and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe.
To include helping prevent the terrorist the the potential terrorist events.
Over fifty times since 9/11.
NSA utilizing 702 authority was monitoring a known extremists in Yemen.
This individual was in contact with an individual and the United States named co lead always signing.
Always sunny in other individuals that we identified.
Through a Pfizer that the FBI applied far through the -- Were able to detect indecent.
Plotting to bomb the New York Stock Exchange.
Top government officials defending the NSA's controversial surveillance programs in Washington today.
And that just heard NSA Director General keep Alexander says.
The programs helped stop more than fifty terror acts.
But it's unclear whether these types and sweeping surveillance programs are necessary.
To keep our country safe and what kind of an impact couldn't attack on the New York Stock Exchange have on the economy joining me now.
They official colonel Cedric Leighton welcome back to the show.
Most miserable -- -- so on the positive side you know the reaction to today's hearing sort of across the board with that.
They certainly scenes.
More up front more professional more prepared than sort of that parade of jokers that we -- coming out to talk about testify and be happy IRS or any of the other hearings this had.
A much more fish are much more researched feel to -- would you agree without.
-- -- -- -- and did you know when you look at the relationship that NSA has had with the congressional oversight committees such as the house committee where this hearing was today in the senate.
I -- I tell you from my personal experience as well as what I saw today it was absolutely -- most professional.
Hearing it was you very much to the point to got a lot of questions answered.
Enjoy it really it was a an example of how these kinds of activities can be examined it through congressional oversight and something that I think Americans.
Hopefully we're -- at this point.
There were no sarcastic remarks like when asked why did you have to go to the White House you know 150 some odd times whatever the number is there's nothing about candidate BA Easter egg roll.
I'm -- of that though.
He when they're sitting there and they're talking about having foiled fifty attacks and you drill down on the details of what is actually being sad.
It wasn't -- -- from the testimony that.
This program was directly responsible.
Or -- -- for sure not solely responsible.
For having those attacks not happen at best it seem like in a lot of cases it was a secondary source for some type of confirmation it.
Your thoughts on that.
May be true for many of the cases I think that they're trying to be very cautious -- how much success they ascribe to these two programs the Internet says surveillance one.
And the one that deals with the phone numbers.
So what they have to be very cautious and quite frankly you know Melissa when you look at.
The way in which intelligence is pieced together.
It is basically putting a jigsaw puzzle together -- different pieces that have different sources so if you think of the jigsaw puzzle is coming from different boxes -- different pieces coming from different boxes.
That's how the intelligence is put together and that's where one box may very well be part and a these activities.
But another box may just be an average citizen on the street noticing something and saying something about it.
But here's the problem for the average citizen out there they are asked.
To have a tremendous amount of trust that the government is going to cast is very large net.
And they are going to abuse that they're gonna collect the -- and they're gonna sit on it only go back to -- if they have at it could reason.
To go back and look at it on the flip side of it you're hearing at the exact same time.
You know what happened to James Rosen what happened to -- AP's.
To the government abusing their authority to oversee and looking ending and and get records from people.
So we're seeing you know potentially -- on one hand and then on the other hand.
We're being told we need this in order to be -- what kind of -- does the NSA have to make the American public to make them feel better do you think.
Well I think they're beginning to make that case but to clearly there are certainly timing was the one of the worst of possible.
And in the history of these kinds of activities.
But you know when you look at the James Rosen case in the AP case.
Those were other arms of government allegedly that that did this.
That they were involved in this and an -- Very specifically you know and I can tell you from my own personal experience was not involved in.
In any of those those cases so when you extend that argument you have to look at -- oversight mechanisms that are in place and all these different areas.
And perhaps what -- -- government agencies need to do other government agencies besides and I say this take a look at how NSA does the -- this kind of oversight.
And then use that as a model for their own internal oversight mechanisms.
That might be a step in the right direction because the NSA operates in a very.
A political nonpartisan fashion and that is precisely what is required of all these other entities and government.
It isn't it seems like -- to the public that that's not what's going on -- to trust one agency.
To be nonpartisan.
When you've seen others that seem to you on the surface from the evidence we've seen so far.
Have gone in the other direction it's hard for the American public to say this one deserves contrasts.
This what does and I don't know it's it's an interesting discussion we'll definitely be continuing colonel thanks for coming on the show.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Filter by section