I wrote to the president on Monday about my continued concern that the administration has not formally withdrawn certain legal opinions, including the January 2006, white paper that provided legal justifications for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. And the letter was prompted in part by a recent speech that I’m sure you're aware of by the Director of National Intelligence. In which he asserted that the program was not illegal (but he later clarified that.)

Now that you are the Attorney General, is there any doubt in your mind that the (Bush) warrantless wiretapping program was illegal? Holder: Well, I think that the warrantless wiretapping program as it existed at that point was certainly unwise in that it was put together without the approval of congress and as a result did not have all the protections, all the strength that it might have had behind it as I think it now exists with regard to having had congressional approval of it.

Director, as to the Patriot Act, three provisions of the Patriot Act expires, as we know, at the end of year. Yet critical information about their implementation has not been made public. Information that I think would have a significant impact on the debate. During the debate on the Protect America Act, and the FISA Amendment Act of 2007 and 2008, I felt a critical legal and factual information remained unknown to the public and also to most members of Congress. Information that was certainly relevant to the debate, might even have made a difference in the way some people voted.

There's also information about the use of section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know. I realize that you're not the sole person to make this decision but I’m asking you today for your commitment to advocate to finding a way to find some limited information to become public so we could have a real debate about this. Would you make that commitment? Mueller: I don't think I can

We must and we do use our capabilities in a way that assures our citizens that the their privacy and civil liberties are being protected. Americans must and they can have confidence that the technical capabilities of the intelligence community are being used to save lives and protect our nation, that they aren't being used to warehouse private information about Americans.

“I want to deliver a warning this afternoon: When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry”

Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out.

(I know that Americans believe that we ought to only use)

The key here of course is to strike a balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and at the same time being sensitive to civil liberties, but if the law is being interpreted differently than it is written that can undermine public confidence make it hard to win the support we need for key intelligence programs.

Bush: Look, first, we used the technique on three people. captured a lot of people and used it on three. we gained valuable information to protect the country, and it was the right thing to do, as far as i'm concerned.Lauer: So if it's legal, President Bush, if an American is taken into custody in a foreign country, not necessarily a uniformedBush: Look, I'm not going to debate the issue, Matt. Lauer: I'm asking would i be okay to waterboard an American citizen? Bush: All I ask is that people read the book. They can reach the same conclusion. Lauer: You you'd make the same decision again. Bush: Yeah, I would.