Pentagon, Edward Snowden, Congress discussed on 1A

1A
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Two specific examples afford hood should shooting and i was involved in i was in the pentagon then involved investigation of it and then they boston marathon attack and in both cases inevitably the post event critiques are done and one of the conclusions that some on the hill thought is that we should have been more intrusive in the case of major nidal hasan emails so should have been breeding them more carefully and more closely and in the case of the boston marathon bombers we should have been tracking these brothers even though there was no real reason to do that so then we're supposed to be more intrusive but other times in the aftermath of edward snowden not so much so very mixed messages i think have been conveyed over over time to the intelligence along forcement communities i do wanna talk edward snowden in a second but is that kind of flexibility in your view a good thing for national security is good that we have the ability to move this target to debate over time or should we as a nation just answer the question torture yes or no enhanced interrogation nassar now i mean what what should we be doing i think the issue here is retroactively establishing a higher moral standard when people after the fact judge that something redoing is illegal immoral or on ethical i worry that in the future some somebody in the congress or some someone in the white house is gonna decide that killing people with drones is illegal immoral or unethical on.

Coming up next