governments documented the genocide extreme check. oh, that must have minds with the genocide sent them to you, give them citizenship. and. busy or permanent residents from school due to fund and for fix joseph to projected in companies for this needle. and that goes to a front has been undermining the governments, is to market people the 20th, just as a way to hide and to you know, to, to try and justify the sufficient images that because they were supposed to be your gonna conduct digital search. if you don't have a country, i need a file for the country that is protecting you and do stuff with you. but if you'd like to find out more about this story and or anything else, then david sound websites, all the dot com that is on for me for today. my colleague shawna dave burske will be here with all the latest and about the

international affairs are at the top of the news around the world with hot conflicts and ukraine, gaza, and this a hell and wouldn't be confrontations in the taiwan straits, the red sea and elsewhere, there's a lot of reporting about various visits of the us secretaries of state and defense and sensitive negotiations with this country or that. but what's the role of the c i a and all this is that little different now that the c i is led by a professional and diplomat. and how different is it now that the c i a is less and intelligence collection agency and more of paramilitary body will get the answers to those questions and more with a bona fide experts. i'm john kerry onto welcome to the whistle blowers the

the. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 the c i a is, are constantly changing and evolving organization in many ways. that's a good thing. gone, for example, are the days of illegally experimenting on human beings in a program known as m. k. ultra also gone are the days when the stated operational directive was simply to recruit spies to steal secrets and then to analyze those secrets so that the country's most important and senior policy makers can make the best informed policy possible. the post 911, c, i a, is much more of a paramilitary force than it ever was before. and new words and phrases have entered the lexicon because of that words like rendition and phrases like enhanced interrogation techniques. to be sure, the c, i a has had more than its fair share of failures over the decades. but it has always been an integral part of the national security and foreign policy establishment. many of us so pined in early 2021. that investment or bill burns was

an inspired choice to take over the agency. he could be the adult in the room, someone with the institutional respect to be able to tell the president when an idea was a bad one, someone to carry out sensitive negotiations. but is the c i a too far gone to be saved or rehabilitated? and is the national debt stacked against would be national security whistle blowers who call out evidence of waste fraud abuse illegality, and threats to the public health and public safety. our guest today is melvin goodman. he's a whistleblower and former senior c i analyst and is currently a senior fellow at the center for international policy and a professor of government at johns hopkins university. he spent 42 years in national security at the c. i a, the state department and the defense department's national war college. he's also the author of 7 books, including failure of intelligence, the decline and fall of the c. i a national security,

the cost of american militarism and a whistleblower at the c. i a now became a nationally known national security was a blower when he went public in 1991 with his objections to robert gates, s c. i a director. now thank you so much for joining us. we are very happy to have you. thank you, john, it's a pleasure to be with you. well, no. first, i want to say how much i admire you and the work that you've done for the country and in support of truth and transparency over these many years. and i'd like to spend a good bit of time talking about that. but 1st i wanted to ask about your own career and your own whistle blowing. you were already a senior officer. he were well known around washington. you are respected for your expertise when you did your whistle blowing. it seems to me and correct me if i'm wrong, that your whistle blowing didn't come as a, as a sudden revelation that you just had to make something public. there was an extension of the work that you had always done. you called it as you saw it. that's

what you'd always been paid to do you analyze the information and make a call based on the evidence. so tell us about the events of 1991 and robert gates . his appointment is c. i a director and tell us what the, what the fall out was for you personally after you went public as well. it's true that i had been very active speaking on academic campuses before political organizations and felt that it was an obligation that intelligence officers who would not compromise sources and methods. but they needed to share information with the general public because that's how the public gets a good idea of what policy is all about. and what politicians are say when they support this or that policy. but there was a point in which i decided i had to go to the senate intelligence committee and and that was different. and that was, it may 1991. i was with coming back from the soviet union um,

change planes at kennedy airport. the 1st thing i did was to run to a new stan to go to new york times because you couldn't get that in moscow at that time. and on the front page, the lead article above the fold was that bush was going to nominate robert gates to be the c i a director at at that point accel, it's time to really go public. so i went to the senate intelligence committee, introduce myself to george tenant, who eventually became a c i, a director. but at that time, he was the staff director for the democratic majority working for david, born and told him i have a story to tell because about gates is not qualified to be a c. i a director and tenant listen to me and called me back to talk to all of the staff a been called me back an additional time or 2 because there were certain senators who want to sit in because they thought it was very provocative. and i had basically rhyme and verse on all of the interference that robert gates had done in the 1980s running interference for c. i a director bill casey that was distorting

intelligence or politicizing intelligence are actually lying about his role in iran . contra, i had known bob since he came into the c i a we talked we were actually fairly close friends as i pretty much knew his record. i knew he was what he was up to, and i knew he's never should have been uh, nominated b a c. i a director. he was nominated after casey died because he was lying about iran, contra david, bore and called him at home one night and said, bob, i think you're gonna have to step aside. i can't get you out of this committee and he told her why. bob went into the white house the next morning and told ronald reagan, president reagan, that he wanted to withdraw his nomination. but somehow he laundered themselves 5 years later, another republican president, who i think owe a lot to bob gates because bob knew a lot about a ron contra and could have implicated george w bush in terms of his knowledge of the cross country as well. and that's when i

went public and things change drastically. was of the teaching of the national or college that and there was pressure put on me by the commandant of the word college not to testify. he said, we have lawyers dependent, gosh, we can get you out of this subpoena. and i told her about the reminded him about the penalties that can be given to someone who gets tries to get in the way of a government. and the major general backed off uh immediately, but i, i went public. uh, it was a very big news story for several days. the white house started leaking scarlett's information about me. so i said, well, i'll start leasing information. and i called the post washington post the newer times. i had an interesting exchange with elaine. she alone, you know, of the new york times that your audience might appreciate. because she was reporting my leaks very methodically and incorrectly. and about one week into

the investigation of the set intelligence committee, the confirmation hearings, she stop reporting what i was giving her, so i called her after the confirmation hearings. bob was confirmed, but there were more negative votes against him that in a, their c, i a director and history at that point. and we had lunch in l. i said to relate, you know, why did you stop recording the information? i was giving you because it was very good information and was from inside the committee. i had sources on the staff. as you said, well i'll be honest with you. i knew that bob had finally passed the test. he was going to get confirmed, he would go back to the c i a as a director and he would become a very important source to me. you would go back to the national war college of teaching. i'd probably never call you again. uh so hi. so thank you for that very wireless and deceitful right answer. and this is what's wrong with the prep. this tells you something about the main street press, and they're unwilling is to really deal fairly with whistle blowers or they live

off of whistle blowers. washington post has been living off of bob woodward and carnal burkes and for the years who had a whistle blower like mark felt. but they haven't been kind at all to whistle blowers and they've been very critical of people like cali rally. and edward snowden and chelsea mat in very nasty the column. this were considered liberal like lou ruth marcus is considered a liberal. the late michael garrison when after whistle blowers, david ignatius, of course, who is a power just for the c? i. anyway, and i've been writing about that for years when after the whistle blowers, so whistle blowers better. realize that when they're out there and they turn around to see who's behind them, they're not gonna see a lot of people. and they're not gonna see a lot of institutions and they're not always going to see the press even though you can have. and as you know, you can have investigative reporting, you can have congressional investigations, you can have oversight without whistle blowers and the history is clear in that

regard. in your own experience, in my experience, testified to that the post 911 c, i a male is much more a paramilitary organization compared to what the c i ever was in the past. tell us about why that's a good thing or a bad thing. it seems to me that the long held belief that human source intelligence is always necessary because electronic intelligence just can't do everything by itself is true. but what about analysis has analysis change? post $911.00 to well analysis has suffered and it really started under bob gates. she heated last as i c i a director very long less than a year. he wanted to stay longer. but senator, bill bradley, who was sort of my mentor on that committee who was very opposed to bob gates, went to bill clinton and said, you really can't extend this man. he should, he should not be c,

i a director and clinton moved from his side. of course he brought it to someone nearly as bad in jim woolsey. yes, i a book which dates did that was so damaging to the c i a is he tried to cut back on those organizations within the deputy director of intelligence where the research was done, where the analysis was done. any group that had independent. and so the senior research staff was abolished that historian, historic staff was boston, the estimate staff was weekend and then when 911 came along, a lot of what the c i a did and the director of intelligence was targeting analysis for the realtor. right. tremendous support to the military, and that's where i agree with you that it is set, essentially become more of a power military organization. then it has ever been and it is not what harry truman wanted to wear. the sponsor, the national security act of 1947, and i have electric at the truman library years ago, and the archive just gave me

a letter that truman wrote that eventually became an update and the washington post that long before he died said he didn't create the c i a to be a cloak and dagger organization. it was going to be the intelligence organization to provide information such as what wasn't done before per harbor when we had broken the japanese diplomatic code and the information never got to the right people. it didn't get out or why it didn't get to the philippines, and that was never to happen again. so truman was appalled by what? uh well, what john f kennedy and nice in our did to the c i a particular with cobra action starting with eyes and powers decision to assassinate or remove most of the deck from power any ron and installed a shot or rod. so over the years, a cobra to action and clandestine activities became the key part of the c i a and then after $911.00, you brought in more generals from the kind of gone into the leadership positions you even brought in a general like david to try us and never should have made

a c i a director that he had to step aside. but one of the reasons why i'm so support of, of bill burns. and actually i wrote, i pads for i write for counter punch and i, i want to build burn street, a secretary of state action. so be almost as secretary state would you look at his diplomatic missions, but when you look at the ca directors before burns, you had people from the military like portrays, lacking jim woolsey, who was lacking gates, who was lacking. and then when you went to the hill, people like puerto costs and george kind of, uh they were politicizing and tell it yes, you know, was the tenants who said to george w bush, it would be a slam dunk, mister president, to give you what you want and bush didn't want it from south. he wanted lies to take the american people to support his war. that's right. now to stay with us, we're going to continue our conversation with now goodman, after we take a short break and, and there's a lot to talk about,

especially the current state of national security whistle blowing. so stay tuned. we'll be right back the. 2 2 2 the release of the russian states never saw one of the most sense community best ingles, all sense and up the in the system must be the one else holes. question about this, even though we will then in the european union, the kremlin, the machine, the state on the rush to day and split the r t. suppose next, even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services. for what question did you say? even closer to the

the, the . 2 welcome back to the whistle blowers. i'm john kerry onto were speaking with whistle blower and former senior c. i officer, mel goodman. now thanks again for being with us. appreciate it. thank you, john. now let's talk about whistle blowing. an oversight you've written and spoken about the problems that national security whistle blowers have here in the united states. they're generally exempt, for example, from the protections offered by the whistle blower protection act. and so when a c i, a employee wants to blow the whistle. what is it that he or she should do as well? what he is supposed to do? according to the whistle blower act and i didn't observe this myself and 91. and you'll know why when i tell you this story about how c i a person

is supposed to report a fraudulent activity, unlike any other institution within the government where a whistleblower can go. right to a congressional committee. yeah, a c i a officer can't do that. and he's got to go to the general council of the c i a and with inspector general of the c i a. and the unfortunate example of the c, i a officer who was at the white house, who was a central and reporting the terrible phone call that donald trump had with ukrainian president, which was the source of his whistle blowing, which was the key factor leading to the impeachment of donald trump, he did repay, did go to the general counsel, and the general counsel alerted the justice department in the white house about this whistle blower on his staff, which is exactly why you should have dakota,

the general counsel if you ever something sensitive you should be able to go to that and my case, i went to the senate intelligence committee. so this is very dangerous. and as you say, the whistle blower active 1989 does nothing to the intelligence community and, and nothing for private contractors who work on the intelligence committee. so if you don't get full support from the intelligence committees of the house has never been very courageous in this regard. and frankly, the senate intelligence committee has grown extremely weak over the years. the office of the inspector general, which is essential for reporting in house problems, has been weakened and was weakened by of all precedents. brock obama, who was a constitutional lawyer ridiculous, terribly weakened in the office of inspector general, and they really don't do much more than deal with economic fraud. now. that's right, so it's, it's hard for an individual. and when you think of how donald trump traded,

the whistle blower, you know, the calling attention to i'm as a political hack and actually putting a number on, on his back where he could have been a target from one crazy or another. fortunately, the c, i a did offer him security and offered him a lot of protection for a while. he was getting official transportation to go back and forth to work with this. this shouldn't be the case with regard to a whistle blower. and when you think of the guard rails of for democracy, one of the most important to hardware else is the actions of a whistleblower. i think of edward snowden talking about not only illegal activity, but in constitutional activity. and attorney general holder eric holder, one after him, while he was working for obama, but after obama left office and holder left office at the justice department, he conceded that edward snowden was a public servant. and of course,

edward snowden was this case, was complicated because snowden gave up more than just the one issue we was trying to expose. making the case very complicated. but the fact of the matter of this information had to come out. and when an individual, i know very well, a name known to you, thomas drake, of the national security agency. brock obama went after him with the espionage. oh yes, it has ended up in jail for 35 years and he has to be of an inch act. as i understand that for 1917 was introduced 2 weeks after we went into world war one and dealing with work time activities. so the misuse of the espionage act and misuse of the office of the inspector general the misuse of the office of the general counsel has all made it very difficult for supplies. and i could add just one more element to this. the whistleblower book that finally came out in 2017 uh, took 11 months of review. i became so frustrated that i went to the

a c l u and got a pro bono lawyer. the case went all the way to the supreme court and then we, we failed at the supreme court, but people have to understand that the office of the publications review board. i have to see, i, hey, is really an office of censorship. you know, if someone writes a book that praises the c, i a in any way or as a high ranking luminary, those books are reviewed and a matter of days. oh yeah, a couple of weeks. oh yeah, it is not months. so what i've done is i don't submit anything and it just, i'm not going to acknowledge their ability to censor a legitimate criticism. they know damn well that i'm not going to expose a sensitive matter a source or a method. but there's information that needs to get out there, that frankly isn't that sensitive because a lot of what the c i classified as to protect the virus. and there's a lot of the c i is done that they shouldn't be embarrassed about. so they use the

p r b, the publications review board as a censorship tool, and no one will speak to this. you're absolutely right. i'll tell you. my 1st book took me 9 months to write. it was jammed up in the publications review board for 22 months. i finally had that you filed on me. oh yeah. i finally had to file a lawsuit and they ended up taking out $120.00 pages. now, george tenant wrote his block and said essentially the same things that i said, but he blew right through the process and then sure i ended up writing and i'll bed for the washington post in which i criticized gina hospital when she was named c i a director and i said that i believed that she was guilty of crimes against humanity and the publications review board. tried to read want to that. and i said, look, my opinion that, that her actions met the legal justification for a charge of crimes against humanity is not classified. you can't take that out

because you don't like it. and then they finally relented. but it's just a terrible scam over there. and the people on that board i found i went out to their office on numerous occasions to get that book released. because the publish i had a very good publisher, city lights, the book was publish, it was waiting in their warehouse to be distributed. so they broke the contract with the on my next door because they didn't want to deal with the frustrations clear. it's even though i assure them i wasn't going to submit the day book to the c. i a anyway. but it was ridiculous. what they wanted to take out, and it was really, they were very junior people who was failed as analysts with we had in the directory of its punches and really didn't know what a sensitive matter was, let alone what. what are we a genuine secret? is they were just there to protect the image of the c i a was the one battle ahead that went on and on was they wanted me not to use the phrase c, i a station cheap. i. so to everyone in the who is the leader of the c,

i a and we obviously use the station cheap. and it wasn't until i found that stansfield turner, a former c i, a director, had referred to station chief at his book that they had to be lab because it is already been right. educated really before the p r b. right. it's a terrible institution. cool. let me ask you another question. at the c, i a were always taught to go through the chain of command something that you mentioned just a couple of minutes ago. but what happens when it's in your chain of command? it's actually breaking the law. what happens, for example, when the general counsel says, oh, that was approved by the justice department, so your complaints, not legitimate? can we rely on the house and senate intelligence committees to do the right thing? or are they powerless? no, for the sheer size and scope of the see i well they're really powerless and david bore and who really tried to protect us in 91 because it was clear that gates was going to get confirmed and there were there weren't going to be reprisals. and the

key reprisals were against 2 individuals to add on us who submitted sworn affidavits supporting my testimony. and when they went back to the c, i a after that they couldn't get back into their positions that they held within the soviet analytical shop. and they were shuffled off to other areas in board. and that guaranteed that he would protect these people. but there was nothing that board could do. i mean, he, he meant, well, but i don't think he understood the personality of bob gates and the machinations of the c i. a is as an institution to punish people who go off to the range of testify this matter. are conduct whistle blowing. so if you don't have a powerful senate intelligence committee, which we don't have, right? and remember, we were very late getting the intelligence committee, it was the crimes of vietnam, c i a, was created, 47, we didn't get

a senate intelligence committee until 30 years later. and that was because of the vietnam crimes you didn't get a statutory i g at the c i a until the crime something wrong contract. it takes something really bad to happen in order to gain any kind of liberal or progressive step with an institution like the central intelligence agency. and that's why i, i'm kind of pleased that bill burns is there because this is a very interesting man with a strong diplomatic record. he's obviously being used in very sensitive positions that should go to the secretary of state. when you look at his role in the hostage issue on guys are, is role in dealing in moscow with food and over ukraine or dealing with beijing to try to restore some kind of bilateral relationships. or if i worry about one thing with regard to burns, it's that he's getting into, i think policy advocacy, which a c r a director should never do. but this is someone who knows what he's doing.

and i think joe biden doesn't have a strong national security team anyway. if you look at the secretary defense, the secretary of state, and i'm not quite as enamored as everyone else is with jake solid, but bill brands does burn, stands out. there's no question that he is the important source within that national security to remember when he was in bassett or to moscow, it was the one who wrote cables back to the state department, saying the expansion of nato is going to hurt us one of these days that's rank and even though the press one, we've talked about it, but in terms of the contextualization of what the russians are doing and you crate, you can start with february 2022. you have to start with bill clinton. the 19981999 with the outrages expansion of nato that's reach. the point in our data was made up of $32.00 countries, including virtually every country that borders on russia guaranteeing

a terrible cold war situation. um yes, and it's i think burns understood that he's powerless now to do anything about it. and now we're going to have to live with the damage that clinton and george w bush who brought in not only east european states with baltic states in tomato. and this is why you have an intelligence community to at least provide some evidence to why maybe the expansion of nato. mister president, is not a good idea. here's a, here's some of the consequences whether more russians realize that we're being surrounded once again. and that the past actually to invasion of the soviet union or to russia has always come through ukraine, whether it was charles of sweden or napoleon or hitler and uh, and they look at data now as i'm trying to limit rusher using ukraine is a tool speaking truth to power is difficult,

under any circumstances. speaking truth to power when the espionage jack can be used, a weapon as a weapon by the c i a is, is that much more difficult? but still speaking, the truth is always the best strategy, polish american poet and nobel prize winner just love me. lush once said, quotes in a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence. one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot on quote. don't be afraid to take that shot. i want to think no goodman our guest today for joining us and for sharing his experiences and thank you to our viewers for joining us for another episode of the whistle blowers. i'm john kerry. aku, we'll see you next time. the. 2 2 2 the, the,

the georges opposition president delivers on the hood pledge to veto the government's bills were exposed to for funding of energy use that as the countries reading policies funds several european board minutes joining a raleigh gate to legislation in to be see to cut a new made via send me legitimate governments. that's how i protested with describing new legislation to increase mobilization sort of thing cuz you own a short video on the truck. there's protest on the of this a key of highway against the draconian laws of the same legitimate zalinski government. the rest 3 consolidations selected, media intern.