the, the 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 have 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 diplomat. and how different is it now that the c i a is less and intelligence collection agency and more of paramilitary bodies? we'll get the answers to those questions and more with a bona fide experts. i'm john kerry onto welcome to the whistle blowers the

. 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 could 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 failures over the decades. but it has always been an integral part of the national security and foreign policy establishment.

many of us opened in early 2021. that investment or bill burns was an inspired choice to take over the agency. he 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 know national security whistleblower when he went public in 1991 with his objections to robert gates as c i a director. now thank you so much for joining us. we're very happy to have you. thank you, john. it's a pleasure to be with you. well, no, the 1st 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 were respected for your expertise when you did your whistle blowing. it seems to me and correct me if i'm wrong. that here was the blind, didn't come as a, as

a sudden revelation that you just had to make something public. it was an extension of the work that you had always done. you call that 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 fallout was for you personally after you went public as well as true is that i had been very active speaking on academic campuses and 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 saying 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 actually, i hope 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 a bob 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. didn't call 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 were gonna talk with 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 iran 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 the by the common donald or college not to testify. he said, we have a 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 immediately. but i, i went public. 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 washing post the new york times. i had an interesting exchange with elaine. she alone 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 senate 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 launch it. and like 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 or college of teaching. i'd probably never call you again. 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 mainstream press and they're unwilling is to really deal fairly with whistle blowers and they live off of whistle blowers. washington post has been living off of bob woodward and carl bernstein 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 uh, edward snowden and chelsea manning very nasty. the column this were considered liberal like lou ruth marcus is considered a liberal. the late michael garrison went after whistle blowers, david ignatius, of course, who was an apologist 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 that history is clear in that regard. in your own experience and 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 changed post 911 to well analysis has suffered and it really started under bob gauge. she heated last as a 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 the side. of course he brought in someone nearly as bad in. jim woolsey. yes. um, a book with gates 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 abolish that historian, historic staff was a boss. the estimate staff was weekend and then when 911 came along, a lot of what the c i a did. and then 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 that 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 in 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 an 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 didn't get out, don't 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 i as 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 dec from power and a rod and install the 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 that 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 bill burns. and actually i wrote the i pads for i write for counter punch and i, i want to build burn street the secretary of state and actually be almost as secretary stay for the 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 kosh and george kind of uh they were politicizing and tell it is, you know, it was the tenants who said to george w bush, it would be a slam dunk 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 state to we'll be right back the. 2 2 the the, what is part of the is it that the employee would posted isn't the defense you of us and bidding the word or is it something deeper, more complex might be present good. let's stop without cases let's go public.

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. no, thanks again for being with us. appreciate it. i as i do, 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, uh, donald trump, he did repeat, 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 to go to the general council if you have 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 whistleblower act of 1989 does nothing to the intelligence community and nothing

for private contractors who work in 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 weak and 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 treated the whistle blower and 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 in the hedge act as i understand that for 1917 was introduced 2 weeks after we went into world war one and dealing with war time activities. so the misuse of the espionage act, the misuse of the office of the inspector general the misuse of the office of the general counsel has all made it very difficult for whistle blowing. and if i could 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 is really inactive of censorship. you know, if someone writes a book that praises the c i a in any way or is a high ranking luminary, those books are reviewed and a matter of days. oh yeah, a couple of weeks. oh that 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 down with all 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 classified as to protect the virus. and there's a lot of the c i is done that they should 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 book 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 redact 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 of the publish, i had a very good publishers, city lights, the move was publish, it was waiting in their warehouse to be distributed they broke a 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 wonder, 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 said that the leader of the c, i a and the embassy is the station cheap. and it wasn't until i found that stansfield turner, a former c i, a director, had referred to station chiefs at his book that they had to relapse because it is

already been uh, right, adjudicated really before the b r b. right. it's a terrible institution. well, let me ask you another question. at the c, i 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 bored, who really tried to protect us and $91.00 because it was clear that days was gonna get confirmed and they were, they 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 and 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 and c. i a was created, 47, we didn't get a senate. and so i'll just 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 crimes of iran contra, 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'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 as code and over ukraine. know, are dealing with beijing to try to restore some kind of bilateral relationships. if i worry about one thing with regard to burns is that he's getting into, i think policy advocacy, which a c i a director should never do. but this is someone who knows what he's doing. and i think joe biden, who doesn't have a strong national security team anyway, if you look at the secretary defense, a secretary of state, and i'm not quite as enamored as everyone else is with jake solid, bill burns,

does it 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 what 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 reached the point now where the data was made up of 32 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 what maybe the expansion of nato, mister president, is not a good idea. here's a, here's some of the consequences where the work 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 to weapons 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 chest a slovenly, lush once said quotes in a room where people you, nan and mislead. 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 thank 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 executive and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do, do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different.

whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please or do have the state department to see i a weapons bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. i changed and whatever you do, don't want my shell stay main street because i'm probably going to make you, i'm comfortable. my show is called stretching time, so i guess you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the wayne state because barely was not to create the test. as bailey was expansion, they arrive clear wrongly we can discuss it. but the rush out there receive the expansion of nature as a vital existence will trap to russian security. and uh, it must be repeated once again. that's russia said that many, many times since a need $9.00 to $9.00. the

. the last, you know, sometimes when he doesn't know the face, sometimes the he might not be a make me happy. i don't know why i don't pay my what are the the it is a war of neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother father again, son.