TEHRAN (IRIB) - David Swanson is the founder of After Downing Street.org. On May 16, Morteza Jabbari of the English Service of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Radio conducted an interview with Swanson on illegal wiretaps in the U.S. and the violation of civil liberties.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: How would you describe the recent disclosure by USA Today about the American administration’s attempt to collect millions of telephone records from ordinary citizens?

A: I would describe it as illegal and unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and something that our president and his top officials have publicly lied about to the public and today we have the revelation from ABC News that they have been told that the Bush administration has been following who their reporters communicate with, apparently in an attempt to find out who is leaking information to the media about crimes by the Bush administration. So we now know that they are not just monitoring calls abroad but phone calls here in the United States and specifically their political opponents and members of the media that they are concerned about.

Q: So one of their reasons is that they are targeting whistle-blowers?

A: Yes, exactly. It has become very dangerous for whistle-blowers. It has become impossible for whistle-blowers. We have people from the NSA who want to testify before Congress and are not being allowed to tell what they know and we have punishment of whistle-blowers by the Bush administration. You know, this started with the leaking of a CIA agent’s name, Valerie Plame, as punishment for whistle-blowing by her husband. We now see that the Bush administration is illegally spying on members of the media in an attempt to find out who is leaking information that they do not want leaked. It is an interesting situation, for the Bush administration is leaking classified information to punish their opponents and then illegally trying to punish those who leak information the public actually needs to know.

Q: But in the case of Valerie Plame, it was the Bush administration itself which was actually the whistle-blower?

A: That was a leakage. I wouldn’t say a whistle-blower because they were not revealing anything the public needed to know. They were punishing a political opponent. They were putting someone and her colleagues at risk in order to punish her husband because he had told the public the truth and exposed Bush administration lies. That, I think, is what counts as a real whistle-blower.

Q: I think it was the first time that somebody disclosed Bush administration lies?

A: It was a very prominent and public exposure of the most significant lie, that is, the one about nuclear weapons, that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. So it was very important, but it was not the first time that people had spoken out.

Q: Is whistle-blowing a crime in the U.S. Constitution?

A: No, it is not. It is, however, a crime in the U.S. Constitution to violate the privacy of American citizens without probable cause and to unreasonably search and seize information and property from American citizens without probable cause. And so the Bush administration is committing multiple crimes, and in the most significant crime in the U.S. constitution and in the U.S. law and in international law, launched an illegal war.

Q: I mean if somebody from, for example, the New York Times, discovers a scandal of the George W. Bush administration through a third party from the CIA, is he regarded as a criminal?

A: Not in the U.S. law, but from the point of view of the Bush administration, yes, that person becomes treated as a criminal, and there have been deals in Congress recently to push that sort of agenda, for example, to take away the pension from former CIA employees who disclose information the CIA does not want to be disclosed.

Q: What has been the public reaction to the issue, according to the recent opinion polls, I mean, concerning this collection of telephone records?

A: The public reaction is mixed and it depends very much how the opinion polls ask the question because if you ask the public whether the president should spy on Americans in an attempt to counter terrorism, you get a lot of public support. If you ask whether the president should spy in violation of the law without court approval and so forth, you don’t get a lot of public support. So it depends very much, sadly, from my point of view, on too many Americans willing to give up their liberties thinking that it will help their safety.

Q: But the recent survey by the USA Today newspaper and Gallup showed around two thirds of respondents were concerned that the program conducted by the National Security Agency may signal other undisclosed efforts to gather information about the general public?

A: That is a very important question and an encouraging response and it is similar to the percentage of Americans who disapprove of the war and the president. Now we have, in the latest poll, 71 percent of Americans disapprove this president, which is a record. This president is more disliked now than any previous president as long as they have been doing opinion polls. Still, it remains to be seen what the public can do about it.

Q: What about the fact that the American administration always brags about human rights and civil liberties?

A: In fact, it makes a lot of noise about the violations of human rights in Iran and in many other countries around the world but blatantly violates those rights here and in Guantanamo and in prisons around the world maintained by the CIA. This is hypocrisy by leaders of various countries accusing other countries of violating human rights when they are doing the same at home.

Q: If the U.S. administration is really concerned about terrorist attacks, is tapping phone calls really a solution?

A: There is now evidence to suggest that in fact the Bush administration had good intelligence prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks that those attacks were coming and failed to translate documents into English, failed to investigate and follow through. It wasn’t for lack of information or for lack of ability to spy on Americans, and all kinds of evidence suggest that much of the motivation is not limiting terrorism but spying on political opponents and reporters who might report news that is not favorable to the administration.

Q: So terrorism is a pretext?

A: Terrorism is a pretext for many things now in this country, including; torture, detentions without charge, and depriving Americans of their civil rights.