Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Edward Snowden is NSA Info Leaker; Zimmerman Trial Set to Start Monday; Fifth Shooting Victim Dies; Freelancers in America

Aired June 09, 2013 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: All right, a lot straight ahead this week.

George Zimmerman trial is getting started on Monday and that where we starting our week ahead.

It all starts with jury selection Monday morning. The judge rule, identities of potential jurors will be kept secret. The jurors will also not be sequestered. Zimmerman has pled not guilty to second degree murder in Trayvon Martin's death.

Also on Monday, we're watching for U.S. Supreme Court rulings to some high profile cases issues that affect just about everybody. Affirmative action, voting rights and same sex marriage.

On Thursday, the Carnival Triumph sets sail again. You remember what happened on this ship back in February? A power outage left passengers with no working toilet, hot water, elevators or air conditioning.

Also Thursday the 12th annual Bonnaroo Music Festival gets going in Tennessee. Some big headliners this year, Mumford and Sons, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, and Paul McCartney. And on Friday the newest Superman movie, "Man of Steel", opens nationwide. It stars British actor Henry Cavill as Superman and Amy Adams as Lois Lane.

All right. That's a look at the week ahead. Also being driven by breaking news today involving Edward Snowden who revealed he is the one who revealed those NSA surveillance program.

I'm Fredricka Whitfield. See you later in the week. Much more in the NEWSROOM straight ahead with my colleague Don Lemon -- Don.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: And the breaking news here on CNN is the news is a name today. He is the person who spilled the whole pile of American government secrets this week. Secrets about U.S. classified programs set up to collect telephone records, possibly yours, possibly mine.

Here is that name and his face. Edward Snowden, 29 years old. He is in Hong Kong right now. He used to work for the CIA and then -- or a defense contractor. Britain's "Guardian" newspaper says he is the one who gave them top secret details of the NSA surveillance program called PRISM.

Well, today Snowden basically released his own name and did a long on- camera interview that I'm about to play for you in its entirety in a couple of parts. I've got our Capitol Hill and foreign affairs reporters ready to break this all down for you. Also a former assistant FBI director.

But let's not waste any more time. Here's Edward Snowden in his own words on why he committed one of the biggest leaks of classified information in American history. Play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARD SNOWDEN, LEAKED NSA DOCUMENTS: My name is Ed Snowden. I'm 29 years old. I work for Booz Allen Hamilton as an infrastructure analyst for NSA in Hawaii.

GLENN GREENWALD, THE GUARDIAN: What are some of the positions that you held previously within the intelligence community?

SNOWDEN: I have been a systems engineer, systems administrator, senior advisor for the Central Intelligence Agency, solutions consultant and a telecommunications information systems officer.

GREENWALD: One of the things people are going to be most interested in, in trying to understand what -- who you are and what you're thinking is there came some point in time when you crossed this line of thinking about being a whistle blower to making the choice to actually become a whistle blower. Walk people through that decision making process.

SNOWDEN: When you're in positions of privileged access like a systems administrator for these sort of intelligence community agencies, you're exposed to a lot more information on a broader scale than the average employee and because of that you see things that may be disturbing but over the course of a normal person's career you'd only see one or two of these instances.

When you see everything you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actual abuses. And when you talk to people about them in a place like this where this is the normal state of business, people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them.

But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it and the more you talk about it the more you're ignored, the more you're told it's not a problem. Until eventually you realized that these things need to be determined by the public, not by somebody recently hired by the government.

GREENWALD: Talk a little bit about how the American surveillance state actually functions. Does it target the actions of Americans?

SNOWDEN: NSA and intelligence community in general is focused on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible. That it believes, on the grounds of sort of a self-certification, that they serve the national interest. Originally we saw that focus very narrowly tailored as foreign intelligence gathered overseas.

Now increasingly we see that it's happening domestically and to do that they, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends.

So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone that they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting you're communications to do so

Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the President if I had a personal e-mail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Just getting over -- coming over now on the wires of the "Washington Post," also now confirming that Snowden was their source as well. "Guardian" now and Washington -- the "Washington Post."

So Snowden says he has his reasons of leaking those secrets, reasons of conscience. So I want to get now to Lisa Desjardins in Washington and then former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes and on the phone is Elise Labott, our foreign affairs reporter.

So, Tom, first to you. Edward Snowden willingly gave up am American surveillance program to a newspaper. It's impossible to really overstate the impact on national security, is it?

Tom, can you hear me?

TOM FUENTES FORMER ASSISTANT FBI DIRECTOR: I'm sorry. Could you state that again please?

LEMON: I said it's impossible really to give the impact here on national security.

FUENTES: Well, I think you can certainly say that there is an impact and, you know, that it will be an important leak in terms of comparing it to other leaks that have occurred. I think one of the things to point out is that there's more than 800,000 people in this country holding top secret security clearance. Individually, each and every one of them which includes me does not have the option to disclose anything they choose because they think it just is important information that the government should release to the public.

So I think that to suddenly decide on his own that he's going to commit a felony and that he's, you know, perfectly willing to do it I think is a pretty dangerous philosophy to follow and if others follow it it's going to be devastating to national security.

LEMON: I want to read this, too, and then go to Lisa. Because here's what Booz Allen, the company he worked for, the contractor, they're saying -- this is the statement. "This news reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm."

And that's coming from Booz Allan. Again the contractor that he works for.

But, Lisa, again this is a serious leak of -- of national intelligence and national security that will be dealt with far beyond just the contractor he works for.

LISA DESJARDINS, CNN CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. And already done, Don, we're getting some reaction from some very high-ranking members of Congress. I'm just going to read you this statement from Congressman Peter King, well known as the chairman of one of the subcommittees for the Homeland Security Committee. Also Congressman King is on the Intelligence Committee.

He writes, "If Edward Snowden did in fact leak the NSA data as he claims, the United States government must prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and begin extradition proceedings at the earliest date."

This is the first reaction we've seen, Don, from members of Congress and it's from obviously a very important, influential member who is privy to this intelligence as member of the Intelligence Committee. I think we're going to be getting more. Obviously we've seen over the last week members of Congress have been uncomfortable in reacting to this story. It has not broken down along party lines. And I think we're going to -- people are going to be very careful in the next couple of days to react.

Obviously some people see this man as a hero, Don. Other people see him as a traitor. And I think members of Congress are going to be very careful moving forward.

LEMON: You bring up a very good point, Lisa.

I'm going to go to Lisa Desjardins because, Lisa, she talked about being a hero. I want to read this quote and then get to you on something else.

He says, "I don't see myself as a hero. I don't want to live in a world where there is no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity." That's one of his quotes. But then he says, I also -- I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions but I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

Elise Labott.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER: Well, that's the key, Don. What is the rest of the world going to think? And he's saying that he wants to seek asylum not just from Hong Kong, where he's staying, but all countries. He said I intend to ask for asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victim of global privacy.

And you saw what happened with Bradley Manning with the leak of those WikiLeaks documents that it certainly enlisted a lot of world debate over whether this was in fact -- it was illegal as far as U.S. standards but whether it was immoral and whether Bradley Manning in this case was doing a public service or hurting U.S. and world national security.

LEMON: And this same thing with the WikiLeaks founder as well, Julian Asange. But it's interesting because, as you said, somebody will say that he is a hero. He is saying that he will be vilified especially from the U.S. government. He also says that in my ways the government will try to shape the argument and use the media to do it to form public opinion. He says that in the second part of his interview, which we're going to play for you after the break and we'll talk about it as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

LEMON: Welcome back, everyone. Our breaking news this evening is the identity of the man who sent the Obama administration into defend-and- explain mode this week. His name is Edward Snowden. He's an American former CIA employee and computer technician.

Today he came out as the leaker of classified NSA documents that spelled out a secret surveillance program. Snowden gave an on-camera interview to "The Guardian" newspaper and we're playing it for you in its entirety. Here's more of it. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENWALD: One of the extraordinary parts about this episode is that usually whistleblowers do what they do anonymously and take steps to remain anonymous for as long as they can which they hope often is forever. You on the other hand have decided to do the opposite, which is to declare yourself openly as the person behind these disclosures. Why did you choose to do that?

SNOWDEN: I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government, that's a fundamental dangerous thing to democracy. And if you do that in secret consistently, you know, as the government does when it wants to benefit from that secret action that it took, it will kind of give it -- its officials a mandate to go hey, you know, tell the press about this thing and that thing so the public is on our side. But they rarely if ever do that when an abuse occurs. That falls to individual citizens. But they're typically maligned. You know, it becomes a thing of, "These people are against the country. They're against the government." But I'm not. I'm no different from anybody else. I don't have special skills. I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches -- what's happening and goes, this is something that's not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.

And I'm willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, "I didn't change these, I didn't modify the story. This is the truth. This is what's happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.

GREENWALD: Have you given thought to what it is that the US government's response to your conduct is in terms of what they might say about you, how they might try to depict you, what they might try to do to you?

SNOWDEN: Yeah, I could be, you know, rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me or any of their third-party partners. You know, they work closely with a number of other nations. Or, you know, they could pay off the Triads. You know, any of their agents or assets. We've got a CIA station just up the road and the consulate here in Hong Kong and I'm sure they're going to be very busy for the next week. And that's a fear I'll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be.

You can't come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and be completely free from risk because they're such powerful adversaries. No one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they'll get you in time. But at the same time you have to make a determination about what it is that's important to you. And if living unfreely but comfortably is something you're willing to accept, and I think many of us are. It's the human nature.

You can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your large paycheck for relatively little work against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows. But if you realize that that's the world that you helped create and it's going to get worse with the next generation and the next generation to extend the capabilities of this sort of architectural repression, you realize that you might be willing to accept any risk. And it doesn't matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decision about how that's applied.

GREENWALD: Why should people care about surveillance?

SNOWDEN: Because even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call.

And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Lisa Desjardins is here and she's in Washington tonight. Former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes also here. On the phone is Elise Labott, our foreign affairs reporter.

I want to go to Lisa, first, because we're getting word from the administration, on the NSA in particular.

What are you hearing?

DESJARDINS: Don, actually, I'm -- give that back to you. I -- we must be getting some new information. The latest I've gotten is actually from members of Congress who I cover that there is one call for an investigation for essentially prosecuting this man if Congress proves that he's guilty.

But actually I'm going to send that back to you for what we're hearing out of the --

LEMON: Yes. Well, the information we're getting -- spokesman Josh Earnest is saying that the White House is declaring -- declining to comment on the -- on the identification of the NSA leaker. The White House will have no comment tonight. And that is the information that we are getting. I was going to give it you because you're in Washington to give you that news.

I want to get now to Elise Labott.

Elise, you're hearing what he's saying. He's saying, listen, the public should be deciding this. The -- this is what the public should be deciding. If there is any information that the government wants to get out, they will leak it to the press and tell the press information that they want the press to have and then sort of vilify the person who may be giving it.

LABOTT: Well, and certainly it is curious as to why he would let himself be known at the same time saying, Don, that he wanted the focus to be on these documents and the debate, which you said this will -- he hopes it will trigger among citizens around the globe. Because you've seen now that right now in the last couple of days the story has been about the NSA program and about whether it's -- whether it's using these type of means to invade on the privacy of the U.S.

Now we're talking -- we're talking about this gentleman, we're talking about whether he is a traitor of the state. We're talking about that program any more. So I think he is -- he's almost kind of himself is telling prophecy and the terms is that now the story is on him. And he's saying that he wanted to be on the program. So it does kind of give the administration an out in a sense to stop talking about the program. Now talking about the individual that leaked. And as you've seen in the last several weeks with the leaks that were given to the Associated Press and then there was a State Department employee that has now -- has been charged with leaking documents to FOX News reporter James Rosen. The focus goes away from the actual supposed or alleged wrongdoing of the administration and now to these individuals.

LEMON: Tom, your assessment of what he said in that last part of the interview? One about sort of shaping the message to the public through the press and then also that the government coming after him with its full force.

FUENTES: Well, the problem is he's not a true whistleblower. He is not just exposing activity of the government that's illegal or improper. It's just a policy he disagrees with. Now whether he likes it or not, that program at NSA is based on a court order. So you've had Congress pass the law, you have the executive branch requesting of the judicial branch the authority to obtain those records from the phone company.

So this is something that's perfectly law. It's being reviewed and operated by all three branches of government. This is not something that someone is doing on the basis of corruption or illegal activity within the government. The only crime that I've seen so far here is -- is admitting to committing a felony.

So if in fact he's the one and he did what he claims he's done openly here on the air, he's the only criminal in this operation so far.

DESJARDINS: Hey, Don, can I jump in real quick from Washington?

LEMON: Go ahead. Yes, absolutely.

DESJARDINS: I'm hearing a lot of that argument as well, for the other side. Those who support this man, they would say it's a question of the constitutionality of what's happening. That this program hasn't been able to be tested by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. And it's interesting that this interview came out today when we saw action in Congress from first of all Senator Mark Udall who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He's calling for a new vote, a reopening of the Patriot Act. That's one thing Congress could do if they don't like these programs.

And then also Senator Rand Paul, well known libertarian, of course, son of Ron Paul, he's saying he wants this to go to the Supreme Court. So the question for those who oppose these programs is of the constitutionality perhaps more than the legality of the -- of this program.

LEMON: Is this a matter of principle? That's what he said. It's a matter of principle. He's afraid for his future. He also talks about -- more about why he did it and what's next for him. The rest of the interview right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: CNN breaking news. We learned a short time ago the name of a man now confirmed as the person who leaked classified government information to two newspapers, Britain's "The Guardian" and the "Washington Post."

Edward Snowden says he did it to inform the public about what's being done in their name. Those are his words. We're playing for you a long on-camera interview he gave "The Guardian" newspaper. Here's the last part.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENWALD: We are currently sitting in a room in Hong Kong, which is where we are because you travelled here. Talk a little bit about why it is that you came here and specifically there are going to be people who will speculate that what you really intend to do is to defect to the country that many see as the number one rival of the United States, which is China, and that what you're really doing is essentially seeking to aid an enemy of the United States with which you intend to seek asylum.

Can you talk a little about that?

SNOWDEN: Sure. So there's a couple of assertions in those arguments that are -- that are sort of embedded in the questioning of the choice of Hong Kong. The first is that China is an enemy of the United States. It's not. I mean there are conflicts between the United States government and the Chinese PRC government but the peoples inherently, you know, we don't care.

We trade with each other freely, you know, we're not at war, we're not in armed conflict, and we're not trying to be. We're the largest trading partners out there for each other.

Additionally, Hong Kong has a strong tradition of free speech. People think, oh China, great firewall. Mainland China does have significant restrictions on free speech but the Hong Kong -- the people of Hong Kong have a long tradition of protesting in the streets, of making their views known. The Internet is not filtered here no more so than any other western government and I believe that the Hong Kong government is actually independent in relation to a lot of other leading western governments.

GREENWALD: If your motive had been to harm the United States and help its enemies or if your motive had been personal material gain were there things you could have done with these documents to advance those goals that you didn't end up doing?

SNOWDEN: Absolutely. I mean, anybody in the positions of access with the -- technical capabilities that I had could, you know, suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia; you know, they always have an open door as we do. I had access to, you know, the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all around the world. The locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth. If I had just wanted to harm the US? You know, that -- you could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that's not my intention. I think for anyone making that argument they need to think, if they were in my position and, you know, you live a privileged life, you're living in Hawaii, in paradise, and making a ton of money, what would it take to make you leave everything behind?

The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests.

And the months, the years ahead, it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance today are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather than a stipulation of law.

And because of that a new leader will be elected. They'll flip the switch, say that because of the crisis, because of the dangers that we face in the world, you know, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power. And there will be nothing that people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes is joining us from Vancouver and our foreign affairs reporter Elise Labott is with us.

So, Elise, how is the government going to handle this. You heard him talking about extradition with Hong Kong. Talk to me about that.

LABOTT: Well, it raises a lot of questions, Don, as to why he chose Hong Kong. He said that he chose the city because they have what he called a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent and he thought that this was one of the few places that he could resist, you know, the extradition of the U.S. government.

The U.S. does have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. It was signed in 1996 before the handover from the British back to the Chinese, but the Chinese did stipulate when the treaty was signed that the treaty would still belong with Hong Kong, and they were a party to the -- to the treaty.

So the Hong Kong government, the -- you know, autonomous government that -- it belongs to China but still has its own autonomy will decide whether to extradite it. But certainly it is interesting. What's going to happen with the Chinese? There are going to be conversations with the Chinese and there is a fear as was expressed in the interview that this guy could provide a lot of intel to the -- intelligence to the Chinese.

And so there already are calls for his extradition. You see what happened with Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. Likely this gentleman will face extradition from the -- to the United States and that's a lacely and unpredictable process for Washington. It remains to be seen whether the Hong Kong government or -- aided by the Chinese will try and keep him there.

LEMON: And, Tom, you know, he has said that he is prepared never to return to the United States. He says all my options are bad. That is a quote from him. He said yes, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me or any of the third party partners. So he knows he's probably never going to come back to the United States if he chooses to. But other people could come after him and bring him back to the United States.

FUENTES: He could be brought back, Don, without being rendered as he put it. As Elise mentioned, that's true. There's still extradition with Hong Kong even though we don't have extradition with the main PRC. I was involved in several cases where since '97 when Hong Kong was turned back over from the British to the Chinese, we did extraditions and organized crime cases and in financial crimes cases.

So we still have extraditions with them. The U.S. government, Department of Justice can bring the charges and make the former request to the Chinese government. Extradition in any event on an international basis is a lengthy process. That part is true.

The second option is that once those charges are brought for the serious felonies that he's admitting to having committed, the Department of Justice can request the department of state to revoke his passport, then it's an immigration matter. Then he would be in Hong Kong illegally and their immigration authorities can immediately deport him. And under international law deportation can be made either back to the most recent country from he entered their country or to his country of citizenship.

In this case it's probably the United States in both ways. So he can be brought back here under several processes that don't involve going over and grabbing him and rendering him as he put it.

LEMON: Tom, let's talk about something he said in the first part of the interview where he said if I wanted to, I could have surveillance or tap anyone from you to the president of the United States. How is it that someone like this have access to these sorts of things? I mean, doesn't the FBI keep track of all those who have access to our classified information?

FUENTES: Right. His exact words is that he have the authority to do that. I question that. Having the capability to do it as an IT technician is one thing. But that doesn't mean he had the lawful authority to pick and choose who he wanted and to do that. You know, employees, IT employees at the phone company can get on your line while you're in a personal conversation and check at any time they want. They're allowed to do that with the exception of being allowed to maintain the lines. Make sure there's no static or if there's a phone outage in the community, see how extensive it is. They're allowed to do that. They can't sit on that line and listen to your conversation and decide, you know, how long they want to do it. They can only do it for a few seconds to make sure that the line is working properly.

LEMON: But doesn't the FBI, as I said, doesn't the FBI keep track of all of our -- all of the classified information.

FUENTES: Well, that's what this request was to NSA, to obtain the records from the phone company at all costs. The FBI is not directly doing that at the moment.

LEMON: And the people who have access to it? Correct?

FUENTES: Well, when you say access, the FBI can issue -- have a subpoena issued to the phone company or to a business for business records and those records would be made available. But that's on a legal basis through a subpoena. As far as trying to intercept the phone conversation, that is a whole additional process.

Whether it's through the criminal court system or a criminal court judge issues the wiretap order, or whether it's through the FISA court judge in national security matters, it's still a request going from the executive branch to the judicial branch and overseen by a federal judge.

LEMON: All right.

FUENTES: So the FBI does not unilaterally have the authority to wiretap anybody or obtain those records on its own except in a national security case they can issue what's called a national security threat letter.

LEMON: OK.

FUENTES: But again --

LEMON: Tom --

FUENTES: -- this comes under review.

LEMON: I'm up against a computer. Thank you, Tom. Appreciate it.

What does all of this mean for the president of the United States? What about Attorney General Eric Holder and others? I'm going to talk with our political analyst. More CNN breaking news coverage next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Breaking news here on CNN. We have the name of the source who leaked details of a top secret government program, tracking Americans' phone calls or records inside the country, and e-mails of non- Americans living overseas. Edward Snowden is the 29-year-old computer technician who talked to the "Washington Post" and Britain's "The Guardian" newspapers. He has worked for the CIA and defense contractors. He says he leaked classified information as an act of civil disobedience.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SNOWDEN: Even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of the system increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Snowden says he walked away from a six-figure job in Hawaii doing computer consulting and right now he is holed up in a Hong Kong hotel preparing for the expected fallout from the disclosures.

Well, Snowden destroys his own privacy by going public. It is a stunning revelation in this week's saga on the top secret government program that can track phone call records of Americans at home and e- mails of non-Americans overseas.

Want to bring in CNN analyst and Republican strategist Ana Navarro. She joins me from Miami. And CNN analyst and ESPN senior writer LZ Granderson joining us from Chicago.

So, LZ, what should happen to Edward Snowden? Is it a felony to release classified information? What should happen to him?

LZ GRANDERSON, SENIOR WRITER, ESPN: Well, you know, I'm really conflicted. I have a lot of phone calls -- and most of the people especially on the Democratic side that I've spoken with, they're conflicted as well.

You know as a journalist part of me wants to see a statue erected in his name because he has us talking about things that are important like the First Amendment and freedom of the press because if we don't have freedom of the press, what's the use of having a country if you don't have freedom of the press. What's the use of having a constitution.

On the other hand, he seems to be making his own rules. If you go back and walk back everything that was done in terms of collecting this information, it wasn't as if President Obama signed an executive order and didn't any level of accountability. What it was is that the American people weren't aware of what was being approved by the government.

And so, you know -- what happens to him? I would like to see him brought back to the United States. I would like to see us have an honest conversation about homeland security and an honest conversation about the Patriot Act. Because at the end of the day, that is what this is all about. LEMON: Yes. And I said, I misread there. It is a felony to release classified information.

Ana, I want to talk about Republicans now. What's the political fallout of Snowden's revelation?

ANA NAVARRO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I have to tell you, Don, I'm not conflicted about this at all. I think we have to remember that whatever happens to Snowden is precedent, is going to set precedent. They weren't talking about national security. We're not talking about video games here. We're talking about the real-deal American lives, the security of our homeland. And it's as serious as it gets.

What's -- what is Republicans going to do? I think they're going to focus on that. You know, I don't think this is going to be as partisan as some may think because I think when it comes to national security, there is unity by the large part in our Congress. And I think you're going to see a lot of people, a lot of Americans regardless of party, feel like I feel right now.

Wondering how it could possibly be that this young man who looks like I should almost finish burping him, has access to all of this information, that we've got this cybernetic Robin Hood out there, and what are we going to do with him to make sure that this does not happen again?

LEMON: Members of Congress now calling for an investigation, calling for him to be prosecuted. Stick around, Ana and LZ, we'll talk more about that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Back now with our coverage in the breaking news. CNN analyst and Republican strategist Ana Navarro, with us from Miami, and CNN analyst and ESPN senior writer LZ Granderson in Chicago.

You said you want the U.S. to bring him back here and then have a -- you know, an open conversation. But LZ, is the government surveillance worth the trade off? Are we willing to give up some privacy if -- if it helps the government stops suspected terrorism before they act?

GRANDERSON: I would say so. I mean, personally, I definitely would. And to be quite honest with you, I have spoken to a lot of people both in politics, in government, and everyday folks. And I have a hard time finding a lot of people who are even surprised by enemies and any of the information that's being talked about right now.

The assumption has always been that the government has been watching. Now I'm not saying that's a good thing. What I'm saying is that there has been a level of understanding since 9/11 that the government has been overlooking our shoulder for a long time and that this revelation isn't as shocking as is being played I think in the media.

LEMON: Ana, do you agree with that. You said, you know, this guy looks like he's just past the time for you to be burping him. That he looks really young. For someone -- and I spoke to Tom Fuentes, he said just because he may have the capability to do it doesn't mean that he can do it, doesn't have the capability to do it.

NAVARRO: Yes, I think, you know, I think what we are yet to determine just exactly how much of what he's saying is true. And I do agree with what LZ just said. In fact, it's already happening. We have given up privacy after 9/11. Who would have thought before 9/11, Don and LZ, that we would be going through the airports taking off, you know, so many articles of clothing and putting our hands up and having x-rays of our bodies. Well, it's something that we have become accustomed to doing as Americans as a way to keep our country safe.

So, you know, the reality is an ugly one. We live in a brave new world and it's a dangerous one. And there's bad guys all over the world and even inside the United States who are constantly trying to harm us. And it's what we have to watch for now. This is not your grand daddy's America.

LEMON: Yes. This is going to be the buzz next week in Washington. Thanks to you, guys. We appreciate it.

There's some other news to tell you about tonight. Another victim from Friday's mass shooting in California has died. A young woman in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: This week on the NEXT LIST we talk to Grant Hill, an architect and designer who says living with less can lead to happier, more compelling lives.

GRANT HILL, ARCHITECT: This main space transforms into five different rooms.

GUPTA: Hill is building microhousing that is anything but meager. Starting with this 420-square-foot apartment in Manhattan.

HILL: New York City, you're going to have some guests come.

GUPTA: You could have guests here.

HILL: Yes, absolutely. Just a couple of bunk beds. Like a lollipop. These come out. And then there's this cool ladder thing that comes down.

We have so much more space and so much more stuff than we did 50 years ago that you'd think we'd be happier, but in fact, happiness levels have basically flat lined.

GUPTA: And the best part of living with less, more freedom to do what you love.

Join me Saturday, 2:30 p.m., on CNN.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: We have some other news to tell you about tonight. The death toll from Friday's mass shooting in California has risen to five. The families of Marcela Franco says the 26-year-old has succumbed to her injuries. She was with her father in an SUV on the campus of Santa Monica College when they were shot. Her father, Carlos Navarro, died. Carlos Navarro Franco died Friday.

The gunman has been identified as John Zawahri, who was shot and killed by campus -- on campus by police just a day before his 24th birthday. Authorities say he killed his father and brother in a Santa Monica house before carjacking a woman and firing at a public bus on Friday. Police are still searching for a motive.

Very latest in the breaking news right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: When this small tech company began out in Kansas, one of the founders, Dan Carroll, knew he needed virtually no permanent staff, just talented temporary workers hired when needed and ready to embrace a new professional mantra.

DAN CARROLL, TECH COMPANY FOUNDER: I guess sort of the idea that the job you create for yourself is the most stable job you could have.

FOREMAN: He's not alone. One business study estimates there are already more than 17 million Americans who no longer work for companies but sell their skills day by day, and that number could jump to 23 million in the next few years.

SARAH HOROWITZ, AUTHOR, "THE FREELANCER'S BIBLE": Yes, freelancing is happening everywhere.

FOREMAN: At the Freelancers' Union in New York, the founder, Sarah Horowitz, knows all about it.

HOROWITZ: It's really a phenomenon where people are hardworking and they're just putting together a bunch of projects and they work in fields ranging from being a doctor, to a programmer, to being a nanny.

FOREMAN: Not much like a traditional union, her group helps its members take on all the tasks that employers used to manage. Networking for the next job. Marketing their skills. And the toughest part, managing health care. By combining their purchasing power, she says group members get insurance for 40 percent less than it would cost them individually. And for all the headaches?

HOROWITZ: Because they don't work that 9:00 to 5:00, they can be home when their kids come home from school, they can still do the things they love, the projects that many of us say, well, we'll do that when we retire.

FOREMAN: And she suspects many freelancers despite some economic jitters are feeling more free because they left the everyday office behind.

Tom Foreman, CNN, Kansas City.

(END VIDEOTAPE)