tv Full Measure With Sharyl Attkisson ABC March 13, 2016 9:30am-10:01am EDT
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] sharyl: hello. i'm sharyl attkisson welcome to "full measure." as soon as you set a passcode on your apple iphone, it sets off a feverish encryption process. if a hacker tries to get data off the memory chips, it just looks like a scrambled mess. but the same feature that's protecting your security is keeping the fbi locked out of any secrets held in a terrorist's iphone after he killed 14 in california last december. a federal judge has ordered apple to create software to unlock the iphone. apple is fighting the order.
today, we have an extraordinary story that predates the apple conundrum. in fact, it predates what most understand to be the beginning of widespread surveillance of u.s. citizens after 9/11. in october of 1997, joseph nacchio was ceo of qwest communications, a major phone company out west. one of his vice presidents told him he had an unexpected visitor. joe: he came in and he said, joe, we have a general downstairs who wants to meet you. which i thought was pretty surprising, because you know generals don't just drop by. it was a 3-star. sharyl attkisson: who was the general? joe: well, his ne is classified, believe it or not. who it was, i'm not, i'm still not allowed to disclose. sharyl: the general was from a u.s. intelligence agency interested in paying qwest to use its cutting-edge global fiber optics network for classified programs. but to learn more, nacchio first needed a top-secret security clearance. joe: i had my clearance by january of 1998.
we received that contract shortly thereafter. and that led to us working with multiple intelligence agencies. sharyl: nacchio's job as ceo of qwest became steeped in a secretive world of classified meetings and clandestine government contracts. he's still barred from saying exactly what the projects involved. joe: so, you could either put equipment in, you could either monitor, there's a whole bunch of things you can do. sharyl: as head of a telecom company, you were meeting with top spy agency people. joe: yes. i'm allowed to say that i worked with four clandestine security agencies and senior government officials. sharyl: for several years, nacchio says, government requests to monitor and surveil qwest customers came with proper legal authority and brought qwest lots of cash. the telecom companies, they make a lot of money off these contracts when they cooperate with the intel agencies? joe: it's all done in a classified way that nobody sees it. so yes, we made money. and again, as a ceo of a public corporation, that's good business, besides being
patriotic. sharyl: was it hundreds of millions of dollars over the years? joe: oh, easily, yes. sharylthe mutually beneficial relationship continued until february 27, 2001, when nacchio says he got an astonishing request at a meeting at the headquarters for the national security agency or nsa. joe: i fly into washington. my guys meet me, take me to a scif that we have that's in maryland, a scif is one of those rooms that are designed to specs that you can't have eavesdropping on. when i grew up and we used to watch maxwell smart on television, it was the cone of silence thing. i go in there, i get briefed, and then at the end, which was very surprising, a new request is made of us. sharyl: by whom? joe: by someone across the table. i was supposed to meet with admiral hayden that day. he didn't show up at the last minute, which should have put yellow flashing lights in my -- sharyl: he was head of the nsa at the time. joe: he was the head of the nsa. he was a 3-star head of the nsa who bush later appoints to be 4-stars and runs the cia.
so when that request came, i was a little bit surprised. it didn't sound right to me, as a matter of fact, it sounded very wrong to me. sharyl: what was the request? joe: well, it was a request to do something that, under the law, i didn't believe the foreign intelligence agencies, particularly nsa, had, were authorized to do unless they had a fisa warrant. sharyl: a fisa warrants would come from the secretive foreign intelligence surveillance court and would authorize the nsa to do something that was otherwise illegal for it to do -- collect data in the u.s. and you can't say exactly what they asked you. joe: no, that remains classified. something was asked. i asked if they had a fisa warrant. they said it wasn't required. i thought that was pretty strange. sharyl: if there was no warrant, he says he asked if the white house had given executive authority for the project. joe: they said that they -- it wasn't required. sharyl: this was under president bush. joe: yes, this was under president bush. and this was prior to 9/11. so i said that we couldn't do it.
and we wouldn't do it. sharyl: the 9/11 terrorist attacks are often cited as justification for the government's controversial programs to collect information on americans without court warrants. but the nsa proposition to qwest was nearly seven months before 9/11, according to nacchio. joe: after that meeting, there were repeated requests over the next several months and i continued to answer the request by saying, look, show me legal authority and we'll be happy to do it. okay, but i can't do it without legal authority. i can be sued civilly, but the government can't. sharyl: how did you begin to understand that you were becoming odd man out? joe: it was june 5, 2001, about four months later, and i'm sitting next to dick clark, and dick leans over to me and he says, kind of incidental to the purpose of the meeting, "joe, you know that contract that you thought you guys were getting?" and i said, "yeah," and he said, "well, it's going to someone else." and i was a little bit surprised, because we had been working on this a long time.
sharyl: dick -- or richard clarke -- was president bush's chief counterterrorism advisor. he didn't respond to our requests for comment. he's shown here in 2002 giving nacchio a presidential certificate. in this photo, nacchio and other ceos are shown with clarke, being sworn in on the president's national security telecommunications advisory committee. nacchio says that contract qwest wasn't getting after all dealt a major blow. a valuable contract? joe: yeah, yeah, we're talking, we're talking in the hundreds of millions, okay, we're not talking $10 million, we're talking big deal contract. well, what ends up over the next several months is about 4 or 5 contracts we thought we were going to get we never got. we didn't get. sharyl: nacchio viewed it as reprisal for his refusal to take part in what he viewed as an illegal program. joe: it was in excess of $500 million that i was counting on that didn't come in that year, in 2001 alone. sharyl: nacchio left qwest the following year without mending that fence. then, three years later, in august of 2005, he got a call. the justice department was investigating him for insider trading of qwest stock four years earlier.
was targeting him in retaliation, something the government strongly denies. his defense hinged on telling the jury how his relationship with the spy agencies had gone sour. but there was a catch. it was all classified. nacchio lost his case. joe: i'm barred under the law from bringing any of it up. i'm barred from the contracts, i'm barred from naming the agencies. i'm barred from naming who i was with, i was even barred from saying the meeting on february 27 happened. sharyl: some of it would later become public. about the time of nacchio's indictment, the government's controversial programs were revealed for the first time. pres. bush: this is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. sharyl: "the new york times" reported the nsa had been using phone companies to collect private information of u.s. citizens without court warrants. edward snowden: the nsa specifically targets the communications of everyone. it ingests them by def
sharyl: later, nsa contractor edward snowden blew the whistle in this explosive interview with "the guardian." he exposed the obama administration's vast expansion of data collection. snowden: but i, sitting at my desk, certainly had authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the president, if i had a personal e-mail. sharyl: it was snowden's example of a federal judge that hit home with nacchio. by then, he was serving a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence. in a bizarre twist, the judge in nacchio's case, edward nottingham, was soon embroiled in scandal, accused of soliciting prostitutes and allegedly asking one to lie to investigators. he resigned and apologized, but wasn't prosecuted. after his dealing with the spy agencies, nacchio wonders if they knew about nottingham's private scandal -- could that have been held over the judge's head as he ruled for the government against nacchio? joe: look, i think the intelligence agencies in that timeframe wereir
government officials, judges, i mean they were just monitoring everything. sharyl: government officials call nacchio a convicted felon whose speculation can't be believed. nottingham firmly denies anyone spoke to him about his personal scandals during nacchio's trial. at appeals panel overturned his conviction, saying judge nottingham aired on a key ruling. the guilty verdict was upheld on appeal. president bush's nsa and cia chief michael haydena, nacchio's point of contact back then, didn't respond to our requests for comment, but has championed the controversial surveillance. michael hayden: everything we've done has been lawful, it's been briefed to the appropriate members of congress. the only purpose of the agency's activities is to preserve the security and liberty of the american people, and i think we have done that. sharyl: president obama also defends the government's mass data collection. president obama: when it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls.
that's not what this program's about. joe: my advice to people is, put nothing on the internet that you wouldn't take a billboard out on 42nd street and broadway and publicize. you have your bank records, your health records, you're looking at porn sites, your illegal dating, or whatever you're doing is all known. sharyl: by the government. joe: and by their agents. now let's remember who the agents are. the agents are the telephone companies, the agents are the banks, the agents are apple, the agents are google, the agents are facebook, they're all involved. sharyl: what do you tell apple if they were to call you and ask you for advice? joe: i would have said, keep this very quiet and cooperate. because you're going to lose this one in court, and what's going to happen to you when this is all over is, for the next five years of your life, every federal agency that has some jurisdiction on you, it's going to be crawling all over apple. and that's what they do. sharyl: nacchio's conviction was
decision that found judge nottingham made key errors. but the government got the conviction reinstated by a split judge's panel. a hearing on the apple case is scheduled for next month. when we return on "full measure" -- the other side of the story -- we'll hear from senator tom cotton, an outspoken advocate in the fbi drive to force apple's decryption.
feds won. apple ceo tim cook is the latest ceo taking a stand as heard in a recent interview with abc news. tim cook: what is at stake is, can the government compel apple to write software that we believe would make hundreds of millions of customers vulnerable around the world, including the u.s.? sharyl: apple was on the agenda at a recent private meeting attended by cook, other top silicon valley ceos, and political leaders, including republican senator tom cotton. attendees say cotton and cook clashed over the controversy. they won't talk publicly about it, but we caught up with cotton, who's on the intelligence committee to hear why he thinks apple should do what the government wants. an. cotton: apple has taken problematic, absolutist position from the beginning. their position is, we don't have to cooperate with the government
matter. i don't take that position. the value of encryption to americans. it is essential that americans have good cyber security. i want phones to have sound data security. i also want americans to have sound physical security. terrorist attacks like we saw in san bernardino are a real risk. tim cook has said that he feels strongly that apple should not have to do this. we expect telephone companies to comply with a lawful court order to put a wiretap if a judge orders it. we expect banks to provide bank records if the government produces a lawful court order to inspect bank records that might belong to a money laundering firm. i don't think we should treat data and tech companies any differently. sharyl: polls show americans are divided on this issue. do you not see
that there is concern over whether the government could be proving to be not trustworthy with the information it collects or could turn into a bully and overreach its authority? sen. cotton: i understand the concerns that americans have, but also know that americans are very concerned about terrorism. the kind of position that apple has taken in the san bernardino case is ultimately going to threaten americans when it comes to terrorist attacks. we have to be able to find some middle ground between business and law enforcement to protect americans' physical security sharyl:, but sharyl: also protect data security. one of the most interesting revelations from the apple case is that the fbi does not have the technical expertise to get into the iphone, when billions of dollars have been poured into the high-tech abilities to develop those capacities. sen. cotton: i don't want to discuss specific government capabilities of the fbi or other agency, but i will say that silicon valley has amazing engineers
the last 20-30 years or so. they arepointed that taking this dogmatic and absolutist position. sharyl: more court developments and head. when we continue on "full measure" -- service animals are everywhere these days. you won't believe
how easy it is for a pet, even a stuffed animal, to get a free ride as an "emotional support animal."
maybe you've noticed how many service animals are on someg for free airlines flights these days. "full measure" contributing correspondent joce sterman put the system to a test by registering a rather unique animal. >> come, booboo! joce: for chris tegeler, his dog roxy is more than just a companion. she's pretty essential to you getting around? chris: yes, she's taught me patients with myself. i've taught her a few things. joce: tegeler is n
this dog is trained for service -- to work as an emotional support dog. chris: i've been cursed out on the bus. i've been accused of -- why do you have a service dog -- you're not blind. joce: roxy is for the issues you can't see. namely tegeler's severe anxiety and balance issues from a stroke. to allow her to travel with him, he got a certificate and a letter that makes roxy a legitimate service dog. we discovered the process to register, though, isn't always above board. does this seem like a system that is ripe for fraud and abuse? paul unfortunately, it is. : and the evidence tends to bear that out. joce: paul mundell is the ceo of the non-profit canine companions for independence. he's very familiar with how for-profit companies are capitalizing on shortcomings with the federal air carrier access act. it was created by congress in 1986 and amended in 2003 to allow people with disabilities to take support pets on planes. since then, more animals of more types have come on board.
turkeys can fly for free with official paperwork that anyone can easily purchase. they're ruining this for people who have a legitimate use? paul: they are. it's very much analagous to people who park illegitimately in handicapped spots in a parking lot. joce: as a consequence, some people game the system to let their pets fly for free. they take advantage of at least two gaps in government oversight -- first, a lack of screening of the companies that sell animal registrations and, second, no verification of the applicant's disability. just how wide open are the gaps in oversight? dogegistered this stuffed -- we'll call him d.b. all you have to do is click here to fly with your emotional support dog. boom, click. we used a company called the national service animal registry, which claims in published reports to sell thousands of registrations each year.
the company says its services are aimed only at providing legitimately disabled persons with id and products to minimize hassels and discrimination. the company tells customers that ordering those products does not make them legally disabled. but we found anyone can click a box and qualify by claiming any of a host of problems, including fear of flying or stress. we sent in a picture of d.b. -- and spent $65 plus another $50 for a vest -- and he was done. it came as a shock to david williams with the taxpayer protection alliance, a watchdog group that keeps an eye on government inefficiency. david: when you start accepting stuffed animals as emotional support animals, there's something wrong with the system and it needs to be fixed immediately. joce: and it's not just the process of buying a certificate for a stuffed dog that's at issue. it's just as easy to get yourself certified. that's a lot of questions. we paid $180 to chilhowee psychological services of colorado and answered 11 sets of online questions with no one to verify our answers. we talked to a licensed
for a total of 14 minutes. then got a message with a medical letter from the company. i'm officially considered mentally and emotionally disabled. but there was something else disturbing about the letter. we discovered that chilhowee psychological services just happens to have the same mailing address as the national service animal registry. so we could register our stuffed dog as emotionally supportive and ourselves as emotionally unstable at the same place. both are registered to the chilhowee corporation, which says it doesn't disclose the relationship online but will confirm it if asked. in public filings, its official business activity is manufacturing leather motorcycle accessories. canine companions for independence is among several organizations that have written the department of justice asking for solutions to close a loophole that lets people purchase assistance dog paraphenalia to violate the spirit of the law. meanwhile, the u.s. department of t
weighing a plan that would require airlines to track the certificates submitted to carriers for support animals. right now, that's something that is not happening. sharyl: how many are stuffed, how many are real? joce: absolutely. sharyl: thanks so much. still ahead on "full measure" -- we take that roller coaster ride we like to call "campaign incredible." >> i cannot believe how civil it has been up here.
sharyl: this presidential election cycle proves anything is possible in politics. primary polls are turned upside down when the votes are counted. and bitter campaign enemies become supporters. all part of this week's "campaign incredible." >> the final four republicans running for president were respectful for the most part. >> the answer is not simply to yell china, bad, muslims, bad. you've got to understand the nature of the threats. and how you deal with them. >> on behalf of the american people, i want to thank you for bringing a little class to the republican debates. hillary clinton: we've got our work cut out for us. that is why it is so important for all of you to turn out as many voters as you can. >> in a stunning upset, bernie sanders winning the michigan primary. sen. sanders: frankly, we believe that our strongest areas are yet to happen.
still in the lead for the republican race. but according to a new poll, his rivals may be closing in. donald trump: see, hostility works for some people. it doesn't work for everybody. sen ted cruz: if we are divided, he wins the nomination and hillary becomes president. if we unite, that ain't going to happen. >> and that same cnn/orc poll shows clinton winning in a landslide, in the next two big contests, florida and ohio. rubio and kasich are underdogs in their own states. gov. kasich: our campaign is rising in the polls based on a vision and a positive message and staying out of the mudslinging and the negative. [applause] sen. rubio: i will be on that ballot on tuesday. i will campaign as long and as hard as it takes. we are going to the white house. we are going to win this nomination. sharyl: this tuesday is another critical day that could make or break campaigns -- with contests
next week on "full measure" -- we continue our reporting from the southern u.s. border. u.s. border towns so influenced by mexican drug smugglers, the illegal culture is deeply embedded in the community. >> it's just well-known. it's just well-known who's involved in drugs. it's well-known on both sides. sharyl: we will visit a drug town on the border, that is next week on "full measure." that's it for this week. thank you for watching. i'm sharyl attkisson. until next time, we'll be searching for more stories that hold powers accountable. ♪
starting right now on "this week" with george stephanopoulos. trump rally chaos. as the billionaire businessman marches to the nomination, his rallies erupt into violence, fear, confusion. >> back it up! >> trump, defiant about those clashes. >> i would have been out there fighting, folks. i would have been boom, boom, boom. >> his rivals say trump is to blame. >> donald trump has created a toxic environment. >> responsibility begins and ends at the top. >> with just two days before the crucial winner-take-all primaries, can trump be stopped? all three of his rivals, kasich, rubio, cruz, are here. plus, full analysis from the powerhousero