>> larry: tonight, exposed, 92,000 secret reports. the man whose wib site wikileaks published the classified documents for the world to see is here.

did his actions damage national security? will they change the course of the war? could someone be charged with treason? it's all next on "larry king live." good evening. we welcome from london julian assage, the editor and chief of wikileaks. the leaked documents cover the period from january 2004 to december 2009. cnn has not independently confirmed their authenticity. we'll talk with julian in a moment. first, let's check in with our own nick robertson, he's cnn's senior international correspondent, also in london. give us some of the key takeaway, if you will, from this massive release. >> well, larry, some of the things indicate that perhaps the war is going worse, or grimmer than officials would often tell us. for example, taliban have been

firing heat-seeking surface-to-air-missiles at nato and u.s. heblgt hechts. we hear the civilian death toll is of higher than reported by military troops in the field. there's a shadowy covert operation going on to kill taliban leaders. a shoot to kill by a group call ed task force 37 3. and that the pakistan's isi has been helping the taliban kill u.s. troops and others, larry. >> larry: is all this new to you, nick? >> you know, a lot of this we've heard before. one analyst put it this way to me. he said, this is old bad news at a new bad time. what he means is we've heard a lot of this before, but it comes at a very, very difficult moment. some of these allegations, the allegations of pakistani intelligence services, aiding the taliban, we've heard details

about that before. we've heard details, speculation that the civilian death toll is much higher than has been initially reported. but it's the timing that it comes at, when there are so many questions about the war in afghanistan, and it is in the granular detail in all these documents that people are only now just beginning to go through that you learn and see the real detail ans contrast on what we're toll publicly and what apparently is going on behind the scenes. the granular details that says citizens were killed in operations. there's no follow-up for. it's in those details that perhaps are the most striking things that we learned, larry. >> larry: also in london is julian assange, the founder of wikileaks. in a nutshell, what is wikileaks? >> wikileaks is an international

public service that helps whistleblowers and journalist get press material out to the public. over the past 4 1/2 year, we've published an enormous range of sensitive documents from different countries around the world, which have gone on to have significant political effects . >> larry: do you just get it and put it out or authenticate it? >> we authenticate it. we' never been wrong. and there's no allegation by the rest of the press we've been wrong. we've never lost a source through the process that we go through. we go through a high min mization process to try to notify affected parties or slightly redact. >> larry: what's the goal? what do you hope to accomplish? >> in general, we have seen from the human rights community and

from the best journalism that lasting reforms that tend to push human rights come about as a result of finding material that is being kept secret by organizations, because they fear exposure. so by selectively looking for material that is being kept secret, we're able to selectively induce reforms that tend to have a positive human rights effect. >> larry: the international security adviser general james jones calls this irresponsible. according to him, the disclosure could put the lives of americans and our partners at risk and threaten our national security. how would you respond to that? >> well, we're used to dealing with organizations that have been exposed as a result of our publishing efforts, and whenever we hear something like that, how could this be incorrect? a martian may land on the pentagon at any moment in time. that doesn't mean that it's correct.

>> larry: so you don't take this seriously, this criticism? any fear, any conscious about possibly what you did cost a life? >> when you're talking about any and possibly, of course, all sorts of things can happen in political affairs that are not predictable. but insofar as we can understand the material, we see material that's at least seven months old. we have withheld approximately 15,000 reports for a further min mization process and we don't see anything here of tactical significance. what we see is a lot of reports that are sort of of evidentiary significance that describes the sort of cut and thrust of the entire war over a period of the last six years. former sort of initial evidentiary basis for getting up, say, prosecutions or

understanding how this war has progressed. we say the who, the where, the what, the when and the how of each one of these attacks. >> larry: do you always know the sources? >> we usually always do not know the sources. we are specialized in, in fact, not knowing oour sources are. we specialize in instead of verifying sources, verifying the documents themselves. that is how we've been able to protect our sources over the past four years is by trying to not understand who they are but rather just concentrating on the material that they bring to us. >> larry: do you at all care about why somebody is leaking? what is the motivation? does that concern you at all? if they may have a dog in the hunt? >> yeah, it does a as part of a broader journalistic process, because that can throw an angle

on the material, but in the end, provided the material is true and it is significant, that is enough for it to be of important consequences to the public. that's our first consideration. why they're doing it can, you know, shine of light to the material itself. was it's not our primary concern. >> larry: we'll be right back with julian assange and nick robertson. is there evidence of war crimes in afghanistan now? that's next.

>> larry: before we continue, nick robertson, do you consider this good journalism, or do you consider it, as the national security adviser says, irresponsible? >> i think this is a new avenue in journalism. it's putting nit a public forum. it's putting a vast wealth of information that mr. assange says has been scrutinized by his team to make sure that nobody is put in danger. he says that nobody has died from some of their earlier reports over the last four years, that it's changed policy, that it's even -- there are reports of even changed governments. good journalism is all about presenting the facts, not putting people in harm's way, but presenting the facts so the citizens of different countries can make up their minds about their own government, about the actions of their government, about the actions of other governments, and then when it comes to elections or moments of putting political pressure on those governments, they're free to do that.

and this appears to provide information at face value, as far as we know now, in that context. often turning to mr. assange and the internet to social networking sites to get answers to their questions about current issues. but here, you're almost turning to the professionals, the journalists to pick their brains to pass on documents and say okay, over to you. is this some radical change? is this something that you see as new? >> we're trying to get maximum possible impact for the risks they've undertaken in getting us material. and this material, we saw -- how could we best sort of have it pleshed out? there's 91,000 reports and some of them are quite technical. it really does need a good team to go through it.

so our organization and small organizations are very successful, but we we just need more people who are experts, people who have been stationed in afghanistan and karachi. we put together this coalition between the new york"the new york times," spiegle and "the guardian." it's something we've done before on an individual basis or with an individual newspaper in the past to try and get through the difficult parts of our material. without a doubt, this has been the biggest coalition of talent we've assembled together. quite a difficult task to sort of keep these three very independent organizations all in the same room working together

happily. >> thanks as always for your contributions. you said that these leaked documents contain evidence of war crimes by united states forces. what kind of evidence? >> yeah, so what i say is evidence of all kinds. we see events that are very suspicious. i mean, in the end, it will take a court to really look at the full range of evidence to decide if a crime has occurred. we see events that have actually been considered by the polish courts and the polish military where an ied explodes in a town and the next day the poles come and shell the town, you know, revenge attack. we see an incident in august 2006 where u.s. forces kill 1891, what they say are insurgents.

there's one wounded and zero captured. and those sort of reports that have this sort of flavor of a lot of people killed, but no people taken prisoner. and no people left wounded, gives some sort of deeply suspicious feeling about what happened in these events. task 373, which i discovered as a special forces assassination squad in capture missions, working down through a list of people to be usually killed, sometimes captured. in one event, we see the lobbers as sort of secretive missile system at a house that is -- has a suspected taliban-al qaeda commander in it, and the result is that seven children are killed. and the report for that says

that the top explicitly to keep this information from u.s. allies, to keep it from the british, to keep it from australian forces. so those sort of events do look quite suspicious. >> mr. elsburg ignited that firestorm in the early '70s, leaking a top secret story about the course of the war in vietnam, leaking top secret documents. i'm going to own my own restaurant. i want to be a volunteer firefighter. when i grow up, i want to write a novel. i want to go on a road trip. when i grow up, i'm going to go there. i'm going to work with kids. i want to fix up old houses. [ female announcer ] at aarp we believe you're never done growing. i want to fall in love again. [ female announcer ] together we can discover the best of what's next at aarp.org. [ both screaming ]

i got into one of the most expensive schools in the country! [ male announcer ] when stress gives you heartburn with headache... alka-seltzer gives you relief fast. [ low male ] plop, plop. [ high male ] fizz, fizz. alka-seltzer gives you relief fast. junior, run the numbers! price on a flight to maui. >> on it, dad. >> nobody move!! >> hrmmm? ♪ priceline negotiator >> i'm calling a family meeting. >> there's no time... we're searching hundreds of sites for the cheapest flight. >> what you're doing is setting a bad example for the kids. on priceline, you can shop all these flights, and get the best price guaranteed. and if you add a hotel or car, you save even more. >> shut it down, people! >> a family that saves together, stays together. now snapple's got healthy green tea, tasty black tea, real sugar, what's our slogan? bester stuff!

- stuffy stuff! - good stuff for bettering stuff! guys? the best stuff on earth just got better. - good stuff, craig. - we're dating. [ announcer ] snapple. the best stuff on earth just got better.

>> i first smuggled several hundred pages of top secret documents out of my safe at the rand corporation. they contained 7,000 pages. my plan was to xerox the study and reveal the secret history of the vietnam war to the american people. >> the fbi was trying to find

out who gave "the new york times" a copy of a pentagon secret study. >> pow, like a thunder clap, you get "the new york times" publishing the pentagon paper, and the country is panicking. >> larry: and we are joined by daniel elsberg. he started that firestorm by leaking to the new york times and other newspapers, a top secret study of u.s. decision-making in vietnam. his story is the focus of the oscar-nominated documentary you just saw a clip "the most dangerous man in america." it's now out on dvd. all right, daniel, what do you make of julian assange. he said the nearest analog of what wikileaks has done is your release of the pentagon papers. do you agree? >> i see what he sees. there hasn't been an unauthorized disclosure of this magnitude since the pentagon papers 39 years ago. i've been waiting for it for a long time.

there should have been the pentagon papers of iraq and a lot of other places. and i wish there had been pentagon papers of afghanistan earlier than this. but better late than never. the war is still on. congress is being challenged to vote $33 billion in a war where the opponent we're fighting is stronger than it's ever been before. the analogy to the war i was helping to expose is very close. >> larry: how do you respond to the white house's assertion that this leak puts u.s. forces in danger. >> you know, the people who put u.s. forces in harm's way, 100,000 men and women in afghanistan are the last two administrations, but particularly this one. the last administration, particularly this one, with a decision to escalate the war. it's -- i think it takes a lot of -- i don't know what to say,

chutzpah for people who made the reckless, foolish and irresponsible decisions to escalate a war that i'm sure they know internally is as hopeless as these new revelations reveal it to be. and yet they're preferring to send men and women if into harm's way to die and to kill civilians and others, in a war they perceive is endless and hopeless, rather than to face the accusations of generals that they have, these politicians have lost a war the generals claim is winnable. i would say that's the same as the boss i served in 1965, lyndon johnson. he didn't want the generals to resign if he didn't give them enough of what they were talking about. i think president obama has made the same terrible error.

daniel ellsberg he's said you're in danger of bodily harm. do you believe that julian? >> we've taken security precautions to ensure i'm not in danger, or our other volunteers or employees. there was a period early on where some private signals coming out of the u.s. administration were not too pleasant. the public messages were not so bad. there does people to be a mergener the private and public rhetoric. so what we're hearing now, at least last week, just before this material came out is a bit more reasonable. we're having quite a few surveillance events. there was according to a canberra national times report and a former diplomat, a request by the united states, formal

request by the government of australia to try and seize or aggressively investigate us in australia, that our request was largely rejected. so there is some sort of significant pressure coming on us as an organization. however, i think it's being seen now in part from statements like the one from daniel that it is not politically feasible to interfere with us at a high level. >> could i comment on that? >> larry: yeah, you're staying with us. we'll have you comment. has national security been compromised? we'll talk about it next with the panel. [ man ] if it was simply about money, every bank loan would be a guarantee of success. at ge capital, loaning money is the start of the relationship, not the end.

i work with polaris every day. at ge capital, we succeed only when they do. whoo! awesome! yes! we've got to get you out of the office more often. ♪ my turn to drive. ♪ [ man ] to the seekers of things which are one of a kind. the authentic, the rare, the hard to define. to those who'd climb mountains or sail across seas... for the perfect vanilla or honey from bees. to the lovers of orchards where simple is grown, who treat every bite as a world of its own. to those always searching for what's pure and what's real... from we who believe... we know just how you feel. häagen-dazs. but, i'm a home. i'm always outside. i make being inside possible. look, do me a favor. get flood insurance. floods can devastate your home. fred, how you doing over there?

i think this is gonna be a problem. see what i mean? hey, i know what i'm talking about. because i'm a home people. and, there's no place like me. [ female announcer ] only flood insurance covers floods. for a free brochure, call the number on your screen. hey nick. how's it going with the website?

going great, babs. made it really easy for customers to manage their car insurance policy online. well, you know that's why we have 24/7 support, so customers can call us anytime. [ in a robotic voice ] does not compute. error. [ all ] error. error. error. malfunction, babs. beep. boop. boop. ha ha. very funny. powering down. [ new guy ] we're not really robots. [ thomas ] i thought we were. [ male announcer ] call today or go to esurance.com. >> i think there's no doubt this is a concerning development in operational security, and as we

said earlier, it is -- it poses a very real and potential threat to those that are working hard every day to keep us safe. >> we're back with daniel ellsberg. and joining us, a cnn military analyst. and michael hastings, contributor editor of "rolling stone." his article led to the ousting of general stanley mcchrystal. first, what do you make of all of this? >> i think there's been a lot of hype about all of this. if you think about 92,000 so-called secret documents in which there's almost no new information, i think that, you know, do the thought experiment, larry, where these are all unclassify documents. merely because the word secret has been put around them that

there's all this excitement, but there's only really one item that's really new, which is the taliban using heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles. but pakistani supporting the taliban military intelligence service, that story has been true since 1994. what's really the headline in that? so this is to me a storm in a teacup mostly. there are interesting details, but there's really nothing new. compare this to the pentagon paper, that was seismic, larry, there was a huge disconnect between what the american government was saying officially and internally. here, all sorts of american government officials saying the war is not going very well. no one is disagreeing with that. >> larry: michael, what are your thoughts? >> in the long term, what's the worst for national security. wikileaks or bad u.s. policy? i think the answer is bad u.s. policy. and in so much as this disclosure sparks debates about

some of the obvious flaws in our afghan policy, i think that's a positive development. >> larry: all right, daniel, ellsberg, you were going to say at the end of the last segment, you wanted to tack on -- >> if i could follow on -- >> larry: yeah. >> let me rather follow on to what peter bergen said for a moment there. the pentagon papers actually did reveal a number of things, but one of the major lessons of that are very comparable to what we're seeing in the reports that have come out so far and what we're going to see. and that is, what was not in those 7,000 pages of top secret documents, high-level decision making estimates, what there was not was a good reason for being in vietnam or for escalating or for continuing the war, or if any reason to belief we would do better in the future than we've been doing for the past 2 years. i suspect from what we've seen so far, and the correspondent of that, with leaks from the

general, the ambassador there, whose secret cables were leaked in january and revealed his vision was pretty much what these papers are showing for the last six years. i think you won't find in those 92,000 pages any reason, any basis for believing that we're going to be more successful in the next nine years, or nine months or whatever than we were in the last nine months. and that's something for the congress, i think, to consider very strongly before they vote for money for this war. >> larry: peter, is that true? and peter, do you have concerns about wikileaks? >> no, i don't. i mean, the i think the more information we have about these very important matters the better. but first of all, danny ellsberg did the nation a tremendous service by leaking the pentagon papers to the new york times. but we're not reliving history in afghanistan. the north vietnamese army was strong. the taliban is 20,000 fighters

on a good day. they're relatively small insurgency. it's not that the -- it's not that they're so strong, it's that the afghan government and military are relatively weak. and there are many other differences. 63% of afghans, a pretty high number in the country occupied by nonmuslims. and i -- you know, there are so many differences between vietnam and afghanistan, to is a say they're similar is not helpful. in 1968, about 150 moern soldiers were dying every four days in the war. about 150 americans died in an entire year in 2008 during the war. we're looking at very different kinds of conflicts. >> larry: all right, michael, does the leak put forces at risk? michael?

>> i don't think so. i think, you know, wikileaks made a smart move by going to the new york times and other outlets who has reputations for dealing with high-level security issues on things like this. i think one of the most interesting things about this is something peter said. many of these secrets are not really secret. in fact, they -- they confirm a narrative that many journalists and others have been talking about for years. so the question is, well, then why is it secret to begin with. the afghans know about civilians being killed in afghanistan. the pakistanis know about isi involvement in involvement. the american soldiers on the ground know about civilians killing and the pakistanis' involvement across the border. so the question is, swhie this secret? who's being kept in the dark. i think the answer to that is they're trying to keep the american public in the dark about a lot of this stuff. >> larry: daniel, do you understand why mr. gibbs, representing the president is so upset?

>> well, he's very upset in part because he's working for a president who has indicted more people now for leaks than all previous presidents put together. and two of those peopl have been indicted for acts that were taken under bush, which george w. bush administration chose not to indict. so this is an administration that's more concerned about preventing transparency, i would say, than its predecessor, which i'm very sorry to hear. as somebody who voted for obama and expect to vote for him again, despite all this. but, you know, in terms of the -- if i may say, in terms of the relation to vietnam, the crucial thing that i think even these relatively low-level, field-level secret documents, compared to the top-secret ones in the pentagon papers, what they both reveal is this -- why it is that despite the fact that the taliban is not popular in that country, they get stronger every year as we put more troops in.

that's a prospect i think should give congress a very great reason for sending -- against sending more troops over there, which i think in the civilian casualties and the death squads and everything else will strengthen the taliban, not weaken it. >> larry: let me get a break. when we come back, i want to ask peter and michael and daniel, what should be secret? in times of conflict, is anything secret? after this.

>> larry: pakistan's ambassador to the united states spoke earlier on cnn, watch. >> we all know the pakistani military, the pakistani intelligence service, they are losing men as they fight alongside the americans. it wouldn't make sense for us to help the taliban, who are killing our own soldiers and our own intelligence officers. >> larry: before i ask you about secrecy, peter, doesn't that make sense? >> well, certainly, more pakistani soldiers have been killed in action against the taliban than u.s. and nato countries combined. so, you know, both of these things are true. elements of the pakistani intelligence service have been supporting elements of the

taliban, but also the pakistani military are fighting the taliban. unfortunately both of those things are simultaneously true, which is confusing. but life is confusing. >> larry: they're contributory? >> they're not necessarily contradictory. pakistan is a very complex country. the pakistan military has done large-scale operations. they've handed military defeats to the taliban. at the same time, they know the americans are leaving and pakistan is going to be attached to afghanistan for quite some period of time. and they want to influence the future of afghanistan by keeping certain taliban elements on the table for americans in afghanistan. >> larry: back to secrecy, michael, what should be secret? many complain that your story shouldn't have been told. what should be secret in times of conflict? >> well, i think clearly there are operational details as a reporter you would never report that are going to actually put u.s. troops in harm's way, but i

think unfortunately the government has a tendency to classify things not to prevent americans from being in harm's way, but to prevent embarrassment for themselves. i think that's the issue here. but obviously there's operations going on, missions that you would never want to reveal, at least not while it's happening. >> larry: you agree, daniel? certain secret things are secret? >> i certainly -- i agree that there are things that should be kept secret. i think it was wrong for the bush administration to reveal the name of valerie plame, the covert operator working against proliferation, work that required secrecy, just to punish her husband to tell the truth. to put her name out was a mistake. i think it was wrong to reveal that we were listening in on osamba bin laden's communications. i believe senator shelby of alabama was a factor in that. i think it was wrong for condoleezza rice to confirm we had a mole up next to osamba bin laden. not good for the double agent

se's health. and it could be that some of these things, i would agree and others would say shouldn't have been put out. but that remains to be seen. the fact is that when it comes to judgment as to what should be secret and what should not be secret, julian assange's judgment has been good so far. i don't think i've seen any mistakes. that video of the apache helicopter they kept wrongly secret for years. and i don't give the benefit of the doubt to the people in the government who decided to keep that video secret and to keep these cables secret, these reports secret. >> larry: peter, as a journalist, are you comfortable with how wikileaks operates? >> yeah. i mean, they do seem to be acting responsibly. just, you know, this whole discussion recently, the

investigation, there are 800,000 americans with top secret clearances. the real problem here is this overclassification thing. it's not just simply the impulse to kind of hide thing, but also a bureaucratic impulse to make everything secret. and the real takeaway from all of this, you've got 92,000 secret documents with almost nothing of any real value in it. nothing about the location of osama bin laden. a lot of hearsay about taliban going to north korea to buy weapons. and my takeaway from all of this is how little really interesting information there was in all of this. >> but it also raises the question, why was it so urgent to keep it secret? >> larry: michael, do you think the administration is overreacting? michael? >> well, there must be this sense, in fact, i know there is this sense that the war is sort of unraveling before their eyes. it's been a very difficult summer for them.

it's been a very difficult summer for nato troops in afghanistan. so i think they feel the need to respond to this. obviously there's serious issues within the department of defense or the army, the fact that individual, or individuals were able to leak 92,000 documents that were supposed to be secret. so clearly, they have legitimate concerns there. but, yeah, i think the sort of attacks on the founder of wikileaks julian assange were probably uncalled for, but i think they clearly needed to respond somehow. >> larry: michael and daniel remain. peter, thanks for joining us. when we come back, general wesley clark and anthony sheaffer will join us. don't go away.

♪ [ male announcer ] like summer, it's here, but not forever. the lexus golden opportunity sales event. see your lexus dealer. the lexus golden opportunity sales event. when you least expect it... a regular moment can become romantic. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis. with two clinically proven dosing options, you can choose the moment that's right for you and your partner. 36-hour cialis and cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. >> tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. >> don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain,

as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. >> don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. >> if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. >> 36-hour cialis or cialis for daily use. ask your doctor if cialis is right for you. you can be ready for your moment with cialis.

>> larry: let's go to andersson cooper will who host "ac 360." what's up? >> bp ceo tony hayward who wanted his life back? he's reportedly about to get his wish. he's walking away with a compensation package worth more than $18 million. this, while live ansand livelihoods in the gulf are teetering on the edge. compensation claims filed have gone unanswered according to ken feinberg, the man in charge. we'll talk with our guest congressman ed markey. we'll talk to the man who leaked the cia documents. and we'll also talk to shirley sherrod at the top of the hour.

>> larry: joining us now, general wesley clark, united states army retired former nato supreme allied commander and senior fellow at ucla's center for international relations. and lieutenant colonel anthony sheaffer, external communications for the center for advanced defense studies and a u.s. army reserve officer. he's a military intelligence and operations expert and he served two combat tours in afghanistan. general clark, what do you make of all this? >> well, a lot of documents, a lot of low level stuff. some of it's accurate, some of it's inaccurate. all of it's dated. if you analyze it, maybe you'll learn something about operational methods. it's the kind of thing that's classified, because whenever we're in operations and we're talking about operational matters ongoing, it stays

classified for a period of years. i agrow with peter berg and this is not exactly like the pentagon papers. most of this isn't new, i think the guys that leaked it did something wrong. this is against the law to link material like this, it's not proper. the administration at the political level does have to persuade the american people, it's got a winning strategy. it's got an issue. >> anthony schaffer, what do you think of leaks and this whole thing? >> if you want a good narrative of the war, can you buy my book at the end of august, which covers all the issues which we talked about today, and it was cleared flew an army clearance process. with that said, i think all we have here is drama for drama sake. this is a poke in the eye. they talk about accountability, but have you a young private who's probably going to spend most of the rest of his life in some sort of incarceration, so he didn't protect him. nothing is being accomplished here, there are oversight

organizations which are in the business to help bring this thing to the surface. my center tries to work with them to bring things to capitol hill. i was a whistle-blower, and i testified in 2005, 2006. that's where i met daniel for the first time when i was doing this. right now there will be no accountability which comes out of this, mr. asage has made drama out of this. there was an opportunity, it's been lost. >> how do you respond, dan yool? >> we have to say, we don't know who the source was for sure. charges were brought against private bradley manning. we have secondhand reports of his motives that he revealed to a hacker who turned him in.

based on those, i do see an analogy to the situation i was in 40 years ago, yes, there are lots of differences, and what i had access to was different from in many ways what this is. but what private manning said, and what's been repeated in his chat logs, he was ready to go to prison for life. even be executed, in order to get out information that he thought was horrific, he's not referring entirely to what we've been seeing so far, what he talked about then was a great deal more to come, and we have yet to see that. >> general -- >> he said he thought it was horrific and almost criminal in many ways, and he was willing to go to prison for that. i hadn't heard of that state of mind i was in for 40 years, i think he acted patriotically. >> general -- >> in the end we'll have to see what it comes out to. so far i admire him. >> general clark, what's the fear?

what are you worried about in the release of this? >> what am i worried about? i think when you trust people with classified documents, they're serving in uniform, they should serve their country loyally, everyone who serves in the military, takes an oath to support and up hold the constitution of the united states, the chain of command. this young man didn't do it, he had maybe the highest ethical and moral principals behind his disobedience. put his papers in, get out. go to the congress, go to the press, say everything he's seen, talk about it, but do it in a responsible fashion. second thing is, i think it does make it difficult for the administration, but this is an opportunity also for the administration to readdress this issue, to bring public attention back on it, to build a stronger base of support on behalf of a policy that's being continually worked, revised and update. i have a lot of confidence in

general petraeus, a lot of the problem is in pakistan, pakistan has responsibilities, maybe this puts more emphasis on pakistan's fulfill be its responsibilities in helping us work this problem. >> larry: michael hastings and anthony schaffer respond right after this. it ends soon. they got great prices. cars built for the autobahn. people are gonna be driving crazy in the jetta... ...the routan, and the cc. that cc is gorgeous. that jetta is awesome. my wife loves her new routan. and they all come with that carefree maintenance. scheduled maintenance included. we're not shopping for cars here, people. c'mon! well, i am now. that's kind of exciting. [ male announcer ] right now, get 0% apr on 2010 models, excluding tdi. or get a great price on a certified pre-owned volkswagen. you know, the guys who always do a super job. well, it is. just get the superpagesmobile app on your phone. and look for a business with the superguarantee®. you'll get the job done right,

or we'll step in and help make it right. so, protect yourself. use your phone to find a business with the superguarantee®. only from superpages.com®. and let the good guys come to the rescue. loves to tell everyone how drivers can get discounts up to 40 percent. your neighbors -- your neighbors can tell you, too. they're probably some of state farm's 40 million drivers. so talk to them. then call a state farm agent like me. call her.

michael hastings, doesn't general clark have a point? you take an oath, live by it. >> i think if private manning turns out to have been motivated by principles and stands on his principles and has thrown his life away for principles, that is very honorable. i happen to be joined on this panel with three people who have made their life standing on principles in an honorable way. so, you know, i understand general clark's view for sure, but i think -- i also respect private manning for the decision he made, if it turns out his motives were to stand behind a

principle he firmly believed in. >> what comes higher, your oath or a higher morality? >> we all have taken an oath. i gave up my career as an officer to do the right thing. however, the outside organization is not tied to any oversight mechanism in our country. we call it law fair, where you tie up the system by things like this, mark and i talk about this before. this event may have the exact opposite effect of chilling whistle blowers coming forward. they're going to look at this and say, am i going to end up in jail. there are mechanisms for which people are to make protected disclose ours. it's not always easy, but it's something that is tied to a process of resolution which os tensably begins and ends on capitol hill. >> daniel, quickly, does he have a good point?

>> you know, we've been talking about oaths here, actually general clark and colonel schaffer and i and every member of congress, and every official of the government took an oath not to the secrecy system, not to the commander in chief, not to the president, but an oath to defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies domestic and foreign. i didn't observe that higher oath. it's not some higher morality in the sky, it's an oath i took to uphold the constitution which was flaunted by a president i served to lie to congress, lied us into a hopeless and endless war. many people who kept their mouths shut in iraq did not observe that oath as they should have and when i risked -- >> general carter, i got it.

>> general clark, is there a higher oath? >> well, i think what we're asking is that people support the constitution of the united states and obey the officers reported over them. >> that's what every soldier -- >> that's not the oath of office. >> this was an enlisted man, was it not? who released these documents? >> he's going to pay the penalty, he -- >> he can go out at any time, tell his boss, i want out, i don't support the policy, i can't serve and take those consequences. look. this is crossing the line -- >> the consequences he's facing are going to prison. >> one at a time. >> the military needs a strong organizational structure to do what the political leadership tells it to do. this is a political issue, this is about the policy of the united states. have at it, as far as the military's concerned, they ought to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. >> larry: thank you, all, we