WITH US REP. TOM UDALL, D-NM
***image1***
SFR: You're one of 70-something lawmakers who have filed an amicus brief to the lawsuits against the NSA [an amicus brief to ACLU v. National Security Agency as well as CCR v. Bush] which challenges warrantless eavesdropping.
TU:
Yes. It's a good solid effort to get a legal opinion on where we're going. I'm very concerned Congress hasn't been doing its oversight. There are no real checks and balances in Washington. Our system was designed to have the branches check each other and here you have the legislative branch, which is generally considered to be the most powerful branch, not checking in any way the executive branch, especially the executive branch's assertions of extended power.
And now we've got this story [from USA Today] that the NSA has had these agreements with AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to collect phone records. [Verizon and BellSouth have denied the story.]
First of all I would applaud Qwest-
I don't think I can applaud Qwest under any circumstances.
OK, but Qwest thought there were privacy concerns; they focused on the real issues here; they declined to give the information. I don't know how these other entities concluded this was legal. All of their statements seem to say, 'We were following the law.' I don't know what law they were following; I think this encroaches and endangers the privacy of our citizens.
The Working Assets phone company, they're also part of the wiretapping lawsuit, I think they are the only phone company that's part of that lawsuit. And if you sign up for service with them they'll send you a George Bush doormat.
[Laughs] I better sign up.
I heard an NPR report last week with a computer scientist on the phone records. It seemed like he was explaining something about the usefulness of the patterns found when looking at these records. Do you think, aside from the privacy issues, that there is actually helpful information that can be found?
I think we should be very concerned about tracking phone patterns of individual phone customers and the reason I'm worried about that is because people might not realize how many contacts they have with the outside world, if those outside contacts would be looked at in a criminal context. So I think the standard we've always had in the law-reasonable suspicion, probable cause-is a good one because then you don't let law enforcement agencies do fishing expeditions. You basically say, 'If you've got a reasonable suspicion or probable cause' but the courts oversee that, so I'm worried about how this information can be used. It may sound innocent; I'm not so sure it is.
I understand the independent investigation [by the Justice Department] on the warrantless eavesdropping program has been dropped because they couldn't get security clearance?
So if they couldn't get security clearance, but this is within the executive branch, so you have, it was the president, wasn't it, who said, 'We're going to get to the bottom of this.' All of these agencies work for him, so clearly either he decided he didn't want to pursue this anymore or I don't know what the other alternative is. He has the ability to tell these agencies to issue the security clearances; why he's not doing that is the big question. Congress should be asking those questions. We should be having hearings under this current leadership in Congress. We don't do that.
Are you getting support on these issues from your congressional colleagues in the majority party?
There have always been some Republicans worried about privacy and civil liberties issues. [US Rep.] Heather Wilson [R-NM] spoke out on the eavesdropping and, to her credit, she asked for, I think she asked for an investigation. I really think what's needed, at a minimum, is a determination of the legality of the program. That gets you to the point where you can decide on where you move from there.
So when you're pursuing concerns you have about wiretapping, the NSA, anything involving records, are you specifically trying to find out if there are New Mexicans being eavesdropped on, or is there not even enough information for you to determine how your own state is being affected?
Well, it appears New Mexicans' privacy rights have not been violated quite as much because of the Qwest denial, although other providers that have differing services here in New Mexico, from those big three, they are providing, so if you had wireless through Verizon and Verizon is turning over information…
It's all so dire.
What should I do to lighten it up?
What do you think will happen? It doesn't seem likely the Bush administration is ever going to say, 'You know, you're right.'
Their position has been to exert expanded powers and I expect them to do that for the rest of the term. But I think when the history books are written and the courts finally rule on these issues, we'll see that many of the actions taken with this asserted power will be found to be illegal.
