gambling industry in this country? what are you watching for? biggest thing is diversification. las vegas is a great example. for anyone who really tracks their slogan is still -- what happens here, stays here. they sell themselves on that. within vegas what we have seen from 2006 to present is actually that their business mix is gambling and from towards other activities, like entertainment, food and beverage. atlantic city has tried online gaming but it has not generated

a lot of money. maybe in the long run, it could be a profitable business. the other thing is to get into the convention business. you have many large cities that are relatively close to atlantic city like washington and philadelphia and new york and boston. one problem is they don't have a large airport nearby. there is the atlantic city airport which is more regional. it is hard for people to get in there but the convention business could be a big boost. when you look at new markets, the final example is massachusetts. right now, there are three new casinos going into massachusetts and also a slots only facility. what massachusetts did which i think was very smart is they said for a certain geography like western massachusetts, we will only let one can see now operate there. that gives you a mini monopoly and it stops the issue or limits the issue of having too much supply in a specific area where everyone suffers i'm going active the original story. when to fold them is

the article in bloomberg businessweek are in thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: thanks for watching today and we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time, enjoy the rest of your wednesday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we have several live events today. two p.m. eastern, the center for strategic and international studies holds a discussion on the iraqi elections featuring their ambassador to the u.s. that is live starting at 2 p.m. eastern. also at 5 p.m. eastern, the atlantic council looks at

russian president vladimir putin's foreign policy strategy focusing on ukraine. the former russian prime minister will be there. c-span will have that live starting at 5 p.m. today onight at 8:00, a discussion genetically modified foods. here is some of what you will see tonight. independente scientists i have interviewed around the world in 40 countries, they all agree that whether they are against gmo's or against, it was released long before the science was ready. it's based on economic interests and political interests. the process itself, i don't agree is a relevant. the process of genetic engineering causes massive collateral damage, hundreds of thousands of mutations up and down the dna, far more than conventional breeding, far more

than conventional breeding and they don't evaluate. an dependent in scientist looking at monsanto's card on the market and found a gene that was normally assigned was just silent was which on and that produces an allergen. you may have an allergic reaction from eating corn that is genetically engineered. the process of genetic engineering created a switch on of that dormant gene and a change of 43 other genes. gmo's these are the organizations -- no problem with gmo's? are they part of the conspiracy? if that is not enough, here are other organizations which do not have scientific sounding names. these are real medical and

protective organizations. andurope which is anti--gmo all over the world, there is the epa which we pay attention to when it comes to global warming or something like that. it would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. i can come up with dozens of these. the australian and new zealand food safety group have identified no safety concerns for any of the gm foods we have assessed. is this reasonable? this is extraordinary. this is fear mongering. this is nonsense and all of these organizations are ignoring it? >> that's just some of what we have coming up tonight looking at genetically modified food and it gets underway at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span. thehill is reporting on republican race in florida's 19th district which includes fort myers. kirk clawson has one the you the

primary replacing the form republican congressman trey riddle --radle. called theted press race. it was my -- he was more than 10 points ahead of his closest challenger. president obama has landed in tokyo, japan in the first stop on his four nation asian trip and we'll talk with leaders in south korea, philippines, and malaysia, the first sitting president to visit that nation since lyndon johnson in 1966. now three permanent whistleblowers talk about the challenges national security whistleblowers face when they seek to expose wrongdoing in violations of law. daniel ellsberg broke the pentagon papers story and thomas drake who was prosecuted as a raddick who now advises edward snowden. they take part in this form from

southern california. [applause] jeff's wife eileen was in the administration in the administration and the justice department as was our first speaker. just 11 raddick worked in the justice department and played a leading role in defending snowden as a lawyer. i love having her here because i am all for models of people who don't sell out. and so much of what we teach is selling out. we test people so they will be able to make a lot of money, go on to great success and rarely asked the questions what are you going to use these skills for? and here is who clearly excelled in the american university system and is -- and has devoted her life and went to yale and

really doing her like work that puts her at risk. -- heroic work that puts her at risk. without taking more time, one of you set the stage of why we are here. >> thank you, bob. thank you very much to the annenberg school for communication and journalism in partnership with my organization, the government accountability project. the government accountability project is the nations leading whistleblower organization. we been around for 35 years and have represented whistleblowers from all segments of the government, as well as private corporations and other entities. recently, in 2008, i began the national security and human rights program which ended up representing people in those

communities and i quickly realized that those are the people who have virtually no protection. i think in our country right now, we are at this crossroads. where the first amendment is under attack and that implicates both you as journalists and us as whistleblowers. i was a whistleblower before i went to work for gap. a lot of people want to know what a whistleblower is and the government thinks it gets to decide who is a whistleblower. the government in this case, often the wrongdoer, does not get to decide who is the whistleblower and who is not. a person becomes a whistleblower by operation of law through disclosing fraud, waste, abuse, illegality, dangers to public health and safety. the term weaker is often used synonymously with whistleblower.

leaker. but these are quite different activities because a leak, for example, when richard armitage leak cia undercover operative valerie plane's, that served no public or whatsoever. that was done surely to punish ambassador joseph wilson. wilson blowing on the other hand is done to serve the public interest and the public's right to know so when i began this program, i was used to representing whistleblowers who often experience retaliation, such as being demoted or transferred to a meaningless position or having their security credentials told. -- pulled. but that has escalated astronomically because, in 2010, thomas drake to the right of me was indicted under the espionage

act, one of the most serious charges that you can level against an american. and he became the second person in u.s. history to be indicted for espionage for non-spy related activity since daniel ellsberg to my left. the pentagon papers whistleblower who did much of the same thing as another client of mine, as snowden is doing today with the help of journalists like yourselves. you play a critical function. that's why journalists are considered the fourth branch, the fourth estate in our government. we, the whistleblowers, are considered to fit -- considered the fifth estate. we are considered pillars of our

-- as they have been failing over the past decade since 9/11. the united asserts the state -- we have an executive that has expanded a an order of magnitude. we have a congress that has been largely complacent and complicit and we have a judicial branch that has not been able to hear the most critical cases involving torture come surveillance and draws because the unit -- the united states asserts to shut down those cases. when you have two important branches of government not functioning, you, the press, play a critical role even more. that is when we need whistleblowers even more. but since 9/11, the people who are out to expose government, incompetence, ineptitude, and things that embarrassed the government get hammered.

but god forbid you should discover -- disclose government illegality because then the hammer will really following you and you will face being -- fall on you and you will face being imprisoned for the rest of your life. this is not hyperbole. this is not exaggeration. i just wanted to set the stage and each of us in turn will talk about our own stories and our own role in this war that has been going on in which journalists have been the saving grace for a number of us. and they have also been all too willing to cooperate with the government in other cases. so with that, i will pass it back to bob. >> i thought you were going to go much longer. >> i can. >> what impressed me so much about your own work and you were a whistleblower is when john walker land from marin county, california was caught up with the taliban.

i looked at this guy's story and picture in the paper and he had been beaten and tortured. without feeling any sympathy for what was involved in all of this, i taught, if there is a tradition of everyone deserves a legal defense and a tradition that due process applies universally, this was the guy that was going to challenge that tradition. what i find so amazing about your career is that, in the justice department, you decided that he deserved legal representation. why don't you tell us a little bit about that case and how it entered your justice department career. >> i worked at the justice department as the ethics advisor. i happened to be on duty the day that i got a call that we had captured our first prisoner in the afghanistan war, john walker lindh, quickly dubbed the american taliban.

i was told unambiguously that he had a lawyer and the criminal division wanted to know about the ethical propriety of interrogating john walker lindh without his attorney. my office got that kind of question all the time. that was routine bread-and-butter question. and i advise, no, you cannot question and interrogate someone if they are represented by counsel. meanwhile, there was the famous trophy photo of him, naked, blindfolded, gagged, and with epithets written all over him. it very much foreshadowed what later happened at abu ghraib. clearly, this was an individual who was being tortured so i am under a gag order and cannot go into that aspect of it too much. suffice it to say the fbi ignored my advice, interrogated john walker lindh anyway and then wanted to know what to do.

so at that point, i said, not to worry, you can see a lot the interrogation and use it for national security and intelligence purposes but not for criminal prosecution. which is exactly what the justice department turned around and did. again, i didn't say anything. there is a press conference held by the attorney general announcing the charges against him and a reporter, one of you, asked, hey, it looks like he's being mistreated here. this photo, he looks like he's been tortured. what happened? and the attorney general said that his rights had been scrupulously guarded. i knew it was a lie but i didn't do anything. he had another press conference a few weeks later, john ashcroft. during that press conference, another astute reporter asked i

thought he had legal counsel. and the attorney general said, if we were aware that he had a lawyer, he would have been provided that lawyer. again, a complete lie. but i didn't act or do anything. it was the prerogative of the attorney general to say what he wanted to. however, the criminal prosecution continued and i inadvertently learned from the prosecutor that there has been a federal court order for all justice department correspondence related to john walker lindh's interrogation and he said that he had two of my e-mails. i was immediately concerned because no one had told me about the court order, which discovery orders go far and wide within the justice department. and i knew that i had written way more than two e-mails.

being a naïve 29-year-old, i went and checked the hardcopy files because back then we kept everything in analog form as opposed to digital because we barely had the internet in 2001. and when i checked the hardcopy file, my heart sank. there were only a couple of pieces of paper in what has been a inch-thick file. i consulted with a colleague of mine who had been with the department for 25 years and he said very matter-of-factly this file has been purged. that was inconceivable to me because the department was simultaneously prosecuting arthur anderson and enron ford district -- for destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice. i wasn't sure what to do but i knew i couldn't be a part of this. i called tech support and i was

able to resurrect more than a dozen of the e-mails, including the ones that documented the f eei -- the fbi committing an ethics violation in the interrogation of john walker lindh and i given to my boss and i said i don't know what is going on here but i'm not going to be a part of this and i resigned. i thought that was the end of this ordeal for me. but the criminal prosecution continued and there was a suppression hearing coming up. the key to john walker lindh's case was the validity of the confession he gave during the interrogation i had advised against. and i heard the justice department continued to say that they never thought he had a lawyer. which said to me that the justice department didn't turn over the e-mails.

i didn't think they would have the temerity to make a statement like that, that he never had a lawyer. i tried to get copies of my e-mail. i had taken a -- i had taken home a copy in case they disappeared again. i taken them to the judge but i no longer had standing. and this weighed on me a lot because someone might die and face the death penalty because i hadn't turn over information or the information i tried to turn over didn't reach the court. i struggled with this. one morning, i saw michael isikoff who was with "newsweek" repeating the party line that he never had counsel and i picked up the phone and call him and said, yes, he did and i have the e-mails to prove it. i gave the e-mails to is to cough. he wrote -- to michael isikoff

and he wrote an article which quickly settled with john walker lindh pleading guilty to two minor and mistreated infractions. -- administrative infractions. i thought my part in this was over. but i didn't realize that by going to the press i was unleashing the full force of the entire executive branch. and when i say that, i mean that i was put under one of the first federal criminal leak investigations. in reality, there is no such crime as leaking. i was referred to the state bar's at which i am licensed as an attorney. and for good measure, i was put on the no-fly list. after that and many years in the wilderness fighting this, i decided to dedicate the rest of my life to representing whistleblowers. i knew when they would come in

and say you'll never believe what the government is doing to me. i could look them in the eye and say, yes, i can so i was representing whistleblowers. usually, the retaliation was getting fired or transferred, demoted, having your security clearance pulled. that kind of thing. but then one day i read about a man named thomas drake, who from everything i could tell by the article had gone through every single internal channel to blow the whistle at nsa and was being indicted under the espionage act, which is the most serious charge that can be leveled against an american. and right now, while i've got -- while i thought tom's gaze was a one-off, it wasn't. it has turned into a brutal war against whistleblowers that include espionage, act, prosecutions more than any

president before obama and more than all presidents combined against people who are not spies but are accused of mishandling, allegedly, classified information and this implicates journalists because you are in every single indictment in these cases. >> let me introduce an old friend, daniel ellsberg. he mentioned daniel ellsberg as setting the marker for whistleblowing and such cases. he is the most well read person i know and he never gets anything wrong i think when i met you, i thought of u.s. sort

of a conservative originally because you had been not only in favor of the vietnam war, you actually participated. you've been in the press corps and the marines before that and in the defense department and so forth. we were having in our unit in this country over whether this war ahead any sense, whether it was justified and i wrote a pamphlet called how the u.s. got involved in vietnam and it was based on what i could find in interviews and so forth. lo and behold, we had the pentagon papers. the pentagon papers settled those debates. basically, if we think of democracy being based on an informed citizenry, we had no way of knowing what was really going on in our name because it was all classified. but the pentagon had decided to do a study of what this war was all about. and this study, which daniel ellsberg revealed, and tony

russo, first of people in government and they will tell you all about it, and then to newspapers. it really was a lesson to me and what this is all about, the people's right to know. because what this was was nothing more than an honest history. it was writing history. it was information used to make intelligence decisions that ended up being an event causing 3.5 million indochinese to die as well as over 59,000 american soldiers. so here you have this karen bass development. -- this horrendous development. there is a defense department study that says that what we are being told about this is bogus and this guy releases those documents and now he's considered something of a hero even in establishment circles because they use him to say snowden is the bad guy, ellsberg

is the good guy. but i remember at the time when he was on trial at the federal doping in downtown l.a. and it -- building in downtown l.a. and it looked like they were going to put him away for a real long time. daniel ellsberg was not getting support he was deserved at that time. >> it had a lot of material in it that wasn't into the pentagon papers. you had more than they had in many ways about the origins. on the other hand, you had quite a bit that was in the pentagon papers. 1965, was it? >> i went to vietnam in 64 and 65. the study was published by robert hutchins center for the -- fund for the republic. -- >> which year did he go out? >> >> 1965. but when i delivered my study, there was justice douglas, henry luce, the establishment

organization. and this goes to how you. prove something they told me you are full of it. this couldn't possibly be. and they all have their friends. the public debate was always a loser because we were not given information to validate. >> people on the left like bob at that time had been saying when it came out, this is not news to us. this is what we have been saying. to a large extent, that was true but they were not being heard and those who heard them like myself had to ask can this be true? who are these guys? what do they know they are not insiders? the president saying what the motive wasn't what the aims were, what we were doing. it was so different it was hard to believe. by the time i read your piece, which i would not have seen it in vietnam.

i was in vietnam in 19th -- in .i was in vietnam in 19th -- in 1965 to 1967. by that time, i was ready to believe having been there for two years. and i remember thinking, if i had read this before, in 1964 or 1965 when you were working on it, i never would have gone to vietnam. the had i read in 1965, i think my reaction would have been can this be true? what is this? what the pentagon papers showed was that people inside were not saying something different from what the radicals were saying. they were saying much the same. they were saying totally differently in the public. in other words, they were lying. they knew they were lying. to some degree, some of them showed particular realism about what was happening in vietnam contrary to the impression they were getting -- we're giving.

-- were giving. -- they were giving. i remember one of the joe pfeiffer cartoons. -- jules feiffer cartoon. how could johnson not know this? the answer is he did know it. he was just lying to us. the government is able to keep secrets very well. and the secret they kept was what they were up to, what they thought the complex were, what -- the prospects were, what they thought the costs were pretty much. they were simply lying about it and they were able to keep secret the fact that they did know that much about it and that the prospects were as bad as they actually were. it's hard to believe that they could have gotten us into vietnam specifically had that information been made available in 1965. there are two ways that might have happened.

bob scheer putting it out in a pamphlet probably doesn't do it. you have to think of somebody else. or i could have put it up. i was just a staffer in the pentagon, but i had the documents in my safe at the time in 1964-1965. had i put them out at that time, i actually believe that it was very unlikely that johnson could have escalated the war in 1965 and 1966 the way he did because he had a senate that was very skeptical of it, that was like two and couldn't believe he was lying to them as blatantly as in fact he was. and there was no whistleblower and i wasn't one. told me in 1971, when i put them senator morris voted against the tonkin resolution which gave the president a bank check and told

me in 1971, when i put them out, if you had given this information to me on the committee on foreign relations committee in 1964, the talk and the tonkin gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee. and if they had brought it to the floor directly for a vote, he would have lost. and at the time when he first told me that, well, they would have found another excuse. to be sure, talking golf was a -- tonkin gulf was a clear set of lies. in fact, we had not been attacked and he got a declaration of war out of it. but they would have found something us to get it. but when i thought later, what if i put out everything that was in my safe about the planning for escalation that was going on before the election or during the election campaign when his rival, general -- senator on reserve, general goldwater was a senator on the foreign relations committee was saying we should escalate and the president was saying we seek no wider war and

i had ace -- a safe full of arguments planning a war after the election. could johnson have gone ahead at in spite of that? i don't think so. hundreds, maybe a dozen people at least had access to those documents. anyone of us could have avoided that war. second, no one asks me or anybody else. nobody in the press was really pressing what's the truth behind this thing? we were looking critically at what the president was saying. there weren't to my knowledge, to this day, making an effort that was rebuffed somehow to get the truth about what was happening. and the upshot of that, the meeting to this day -- we don't

have nearly as many whistleblowers as we could and should have. how many with debbie? -- how many would that be? bob -- how many would that be? anyone who had that documentation would have realize that the constitution was being thwarted and violated. later in the year, when the escalation occurred, they weren't even attending there had been an attack on the united states. yet we were moving ahead, lying to congress, fairly unconstitutional. each one of us in the executive branch had taken the same old -- both -- oath that i'm sure is the same with you, tom, which is to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. and i think we all at that time,

my colleagues and i, all violated that oath. i don't think we even asked ourselves what would it mean to disobey the oath? it didn't come up. we were beyond the constitution. we worked for the president. he decided what we should have, which wasn't especially constitution, but it was the trend. president truman took us to war in korea which was not constitutional. we were killing but not dying so our present president went to war in libya and said we were killing but not dying so that was not a war. that's harold cole who used to say that. in the case of libya. what i'm saying is whistleblowers have the ability to avert a disastrous, hopeless,

bloody war and not only that one. iraq could have been stopped that way by anyone of a thousand people who knew what we were getting into. not one of whom told the truth. nor did any -- actually, there were in that particular case, unlike vietnam, a couple of reporters, walter pincus and others, some dissenters talking about the lack of evidence for wmd's. but the leaks, the top seek it -- the top-secret leaks to judith miller and michael gordon that there were wmd's, that there were cylinders and for saddam, that's not on the front page. it helped get us into the war so the reporters in washington failed across the board on iraq in exactly the same way they had

failed years before on vietnam. and the people in the government all failed to carry out their oath to the country -- to the constitution, all without any exception known to me except for a two anonymous like acus and a -- sources and a couple of others during that period. the government can keep secrets, does keep secrets, even when thousands of people know them and know that they are critical to a deadly war going on. and its ability to keep secrets, then the incentives to reframe -- to refrain from crimes, lies is pretty much eroded. without accountability, they can go ahead and they do. and the price of that is wars like vietnam and iraq. i think it is leaks about to

ciber in particular and others, about the military resistance to nuclear weapons and other attacks on iran that i began leaking in 2006 and leaked again about syria this week, about false flag operations in syria done with the support of the turkish government about the serum gas in syria. we need more efforts by the rest. thanks to those leaks, we are not at war in syria right now. we need more efforts by the press to dig them up. >> i want to pick up on that. the fact of the matter is we get most of our news on national security, foreign policy from leaks. >> true. we get false stories. you get plenty of false stories. >> you mentioned judy miller. you have been in those official circles.

what i wonder, in those circles -- let me get the background. you spent time in the air force and the navy, but one of the interesting experiences you had is you were in east germany so you became familiar with the horrors of the official propaganda system. you understand the need of information for a free society and then like snowden, you are a contractor but then you rose to a high official position. surely, living in washington, as two of you do, probably rare. enormously leak. let's we had lunch today. i remember when i was reporting for "the l.a. times and the development of a star wars system, i think it just goes to

the point i was on tsa or a southwest airlines, a plane going from l.a. to san jose but the father behind the h bomb god reagan to support star wars. he said, where you going and i said i am going to the stanford arms-control program. i said make sure sid tells you about the great results we had on the cottage test. we got lazing. true that would be the biggest change in the military balance. it was the thing that any enemy would want to know. and here he is telling me, a suspect character that no one should trust, right? telling me the result of this test.

the very name of the test had to be secret. the very result, so forth. so i went to the office control and i managed -- i mention this to sid and he said i cannot talk about this because it is of the highest confidentially out. they routinely give information of that sort. drake,case of thomas what got you in trouble and what is interesting about thomas drake is that it was a very important story but it was boring from a kind of cops and robbers or national security thing. it really has to do, if i understand it correctly, with efficient c, wasted resources, and an important issue of privacy as well. but the nsa had developed a system with a very brilliant fellow who had developed a system for a thin thread that would allow you to go through information but in a selective

way still preserving privacy. this was after 9/11, very important. before 9/11, it could have been used to good effect instead, they rejected that system and went for an enormously expensive system that has never worked and has a bludgeoning effect. this was really the thing that turned you into a whistleblower, isn't that true? >> in part, yes. you don't wake up one morning and decide to be a whistleblower. it is not a profession you would normally seek. i don't remember going to my high school counselor and saying, hey, i want to be a whistleblower. it just wasn't on the list. i grew up in vermont. as a very young teenager, i witnessed seniors earning their draft cards in the back lot of the high school. -- burning their draft cards in the back lot of the high school. i was 14. and i remember that because dan

ellsberg was a key individual in my understanding of what can go wrong with your own government. my cynical way getting as a -- my civic awakening as a young adult took place in the 1970's. pentagon papers leaked by dan ellsberg. sy hersh, me lie, and all of that meant. -- and all that that meant. the horror of vietnam as a continue to unfold. watergate. woodward and bernstein. think about -- that is where they got their beginnings and their fame, to sit that way, in terms of reporting. it was a really cool profession to be in. then i saw a president of the united states resign from

office. yet when i became eyewitness to just a few short decades later -- in fact, in reality, it was only about twice six years later -- wendy six years later -- makes the nixon era look tame by comparison. and much of what was actually illegal during the 1970's and terms of government act tvs violating the law became legal. i mention all of that because that is the context in which i came the context in which i was .came the context in which i was brought up. vermont used to be a republic for 14 years until he joined the

union. in 1791. we have to remember the beginnings of this country and that the first amendment, which i ultimately have to confront after 9/11, what is happening to our country, that it is our cornerstone of who we are as amendment -- as americans. if we don't have the first amendment, everything else becomes propaganda. information control by the government. it is important to note that vietnam's lessons were learned quite well by those in power. they actually said in a book published about this that, if we ever find ourselves in conflict of this nature in the future, we have to control the message. because the fact remains that vietnam was really the first

television war during it was brought right into the living rooms of america. they got to see it all played out over a number of that backdrop. -- of years. all that is backdrop. we also have to remember something else. because history is really important here, especially for the profession you are looking to go into. because you are reporting on the news, you can't understand the news without understanding the history. and one of the things that becomes so seminal in your understanding about that period is that there were congressional hearings. just look up the church and type -- committee meetings. detailing, cataloging a whole series of violations by the government. but i am not here to give you a litany of all those violations and all that wrongdoing. one of the things that came out

during the 1970's, which is often forgotten by the apologists of the national security state in the post-9/11 era, is that nsa and the cia and the fbi were routinely violating the rights of americans with impunity. nsa formed the deepest of secrecy not by congress but by the virtue of a presidential signature in 1952. a military organization headed by a three-star general now a four-star general. it had been routinely violating the rights of americans on a program called operation shamrock, the first mass surveillance program, truth be told. all telexes coming into the united states and exiting the united states were routinely

collected and copied and given to the nsa. and guess who was providing them under the greatest secrecy? the very corporations like rca global, for example, as well as several others, just turning this over to the government. total violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution. i'm saying all this -- look up operation minaret. nsa using its extraordinary power back in the 1960's and 70's to spy on americans that they didn't like, that posed threats to the state, were activists, dissenters, journalists and reporters. providing in the public interest critical information about what was going on inside the government, finding themselves on the other end of an nsa surveilling them with the technology of that day. i say all that because a lot of reforms were instituted in the

1970's, including something called the foreign intelligence surveillance act passed under the carter administration. also establishing to standing committees on intelligence to provide oversight so it wouldn't get out of hand as was demonstrated before -- by all of these disclosures. daniel ellsberg, turning over the pentagon papers in the public interest because the american people have the right to know what their government was doing in their name. now, accelerate to 9/11. i'll ask the question rhetorically, what were you doing on 9/11? for many in this room, including my own son who is 18 and a freshman at virginia wesleyan -- 9/11, he doesn't remember the

spring i 11 world. the only world he actually knows is what occurred after 9/11. some of us actually remember nine -- 9-10. some of us would like to return to 9/10. my first job was 9/11. i did not know when i was sitting in the legislative affairs office listening to my immediate supervisor attempt to explain why nsa needed billions of dollars to meet the challenges of the digital age, a program that i actually blew the whistle -- i didn't know what was about to happen while i was in that room. and while i was in that room, both towers were hit and then the pentagon shortly thereafter. and yet that was a trigger event. almost 3000 people were murdered. it was a trigger event in which

i am going to say this in the strongest possible language. it was the reality of what i confronted, the horror of what i confronted that my own government unchained itself on the constitution. a silent coup against the constitution, placing itself, granting itself authority to engage in emergency powers -- emergency powers. we've been operating in that mode ever since. truth be told. and a series of decisions were made. we have to remember 9/11 was fundamentally a failure but it was used to cut is the government is too big to fail -- it was used as an excuse to engage in a whole series of the committees and -- series of activities and operations that are total violations of what we actually stood for.

and none of it was necessary. none of it was necessary. the very best of american ingenuity had already been ready to go. well before 9/11. we never have to go to the dark side as vice president cheney himself said on public broadcast television five days after 9/11. so what did i confront? within days of 9/11, the power of nsa being turned on the united states, full power. nsa was supposed to do for intelligence. -- foreign intelligence but apparently, the united states was now a foreign nation for all intents and purposes. my moment of truth occurred three weeks after 9/11 when i confronted a lead attorney in the nsa in the office of general counsel.

i said what are we doing? it's the prime directive that you do not spy on americans without a warrant. and now we are just separating ourselves from the fourth amendment? there is an entire directive, a regime in which i was fundamentally accountable and had been ever since i was in the military, flying reconnaissance. there were procedures involved. all of this was tossed out. i wasn't just looking at the wheels coming off this thing called the constitutional republic.

i was actually looking at an entirely new vehicle that i did not recognize, an alien form of government. remember, i had taken the oath four times to defend the constitution. now i witnessed a subversion of now i witnessed a subversion of the constitution and 9/11 was a trigger for billions and billions of dollars being poured into nsa. failure was really profitable. and fact, my immediate supervisor, as we went around the complex attempting to console the workforce, they knew that we had failed the nation. they knew that we were also responsible for not keeping people out of harms way. just read the preamble of the constitution, the two is possibilities of the government, provide for the public defense. 9/11 was a gift to nsa. we will get all the money we want and then some. and congress really provided link checks to nsa for the next

several years. so that was fraud, waste and abuse. then i discovered there was critical intelligence that had been kept by nsa and never shared with the rest of the government. the real truth here is what i was confronted by. in terms of what the government chose to do -- no public debate, no need for the public to know they were doing everything to keep us away from the public. so what do you do? my colleagues resigned from the agency that i work with. and i chose to stay on and fight. i made a conscious choice that i would fight them from within because that moment of truth set into motion my whistleblowing within the system for a number

of years and then ultimately leading to a choice to go to the press with what i knew. and here is where i looked at dan ellsberg in terms of living history. back during the nixon administration, the president actually had said that, if the president says it's ok, it's legal. here is what the leading nsa attorney told me. you don't understand, this program is all legal. it was approved by the white house. as soon as i heard that, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. we are the executive agent for the program. it was a dragnet surveillance program. you cannot understand snowden. you cannot understand any of the disclosures to date without understanding the foundation of those surveillance programs. so i went through all channels.

i ended of the a material witness for 29/11 investigations. i gave them thousands of pages of material evidence and i wish i had actually kept that evidence. and and i have talked about this, just like he shared with you that he wished he had exposed the pentagon papers years earlier. it might have stopped the war, may have prevented it from occurring. so a material witness for two 9/11, no investigations. all of the evidence was censored and suppressed. the only evidence that i had any contact, material contact is the fact that i was interviewed. there are people right now, for a number of years, trying to

track down where did all of my material witness evidence, both verbal and in documented form and up? and everybody is playing dumb. i wonder why. because buried in there are things i is closed publicly later. buried in there is the reality of the foundational programs of which you have been hearing so much about june 23. -- june 2013. thank you ed snowden. buried in there is the evidence of nsa having critical intelligence that could have prevented, stopped 9/11. nsa conveniently said how kinsey meant it was for nsa to hide behind the fbi and the nsa. let them take the hit. this is the stark reality of our

government turning into something other than what it is supposed to do. and as i recall from the nixon era, the cover-up is often worse than the crime. i am eyewitness to high crimes and misdemeanors and they are all covering it up and billions are being spent because it was a really big failure so it chased a lot of money. none of this needed to happen. the very best technology had already been developed. the fact is i discovered when i was the executive program manager, we were actually able to look at the critical or the critical database at nsa and discovered pre-and post-9/11 intelligence, information that had never been shared, information they didn't even know they had. and in thread fundamentally

protected the fourth amendment rights. so i went through all this -- noah the program they did adopt it as they took a portion of thin thread and without any controls at all, no fourth amendment controls, everything was just taken. all phone numbers, e-mail a dress is coming internet usage. watching all the disclosures from edward snowden, i'm aware there is far more that has been going on inside the government than what edward snowden has disclosed. truth again be told. this is really, really disturbing knowledge in history about our own government. trailblazer was launched to great fanfare a year and a half

before 9/11 ostensibly as a flagship program to deal with the digital age. nsa was going deaf. it was literally being drowned in all this data. they were in violation of the federal acquisition regulations. they decided to buy the solution, not make it. it had already been made. look up eisenhower's farewell speech before kennedy became president in 1961. i get all the way to 2005. then i was part of the argument of -- department of inspector trailblazer. this is just after fall of 05 and there is a new director of nsa. there is a final report from the department of defense.

i had no one reporting to me. i ended up at the national defense university and i made a fateful decision. in 2005, it is important to , it wase for you fundamental press reporting as far as unraveling deep state secrets all those many years since 9/11. wrightson and others

published, although they held onto this for 14 months prior to the presidential elections. they launched a criminal leak investigation to find the sources of that article. and i knew when they launched the investigation i would become a prime target. why? because the set of people knew about the surveillance programs were extraordinarily small. and because i had been the executive program manager on an thread, and although they had completely shut down -- does anybody watch indiana jones? imagine thin thread, which is really software -- for member the famous picture at the end of the first indiana jones movie where there is the box, the container going into the government warehouse echo that is the last time i saw thin thread. -- into the government warehouse? that is the last time i saw thin

red -- thin thread. the digital warehouse. i knew i would be a target of the government in this investigation. report -- and i will keep emphasizing this, how absolutely crucial the press is, most disturbing of truths about our own government. leakting in 2010 that this investigation was so crucial to the government to find out who had provided information about the secret surveillance programs to the "new york times" that they put five full-time prosecutors on it and 25 full-time agents. i can tell you from my own deal that they actually borrowed agents from the mole hunter unit, which is the elite spy hunting unit. that is how serious it was.

i always knew this, but there was a third rail option. the third rail option that you never touched at nsa, because you never say anything when you work at nsa, especially to the public. and especially to a reporter. and especially if it is not preauthorized. and i knew that i could be placed under investigation for leaking information. that i knew. and i chose to share information

with a reporter who was writing a series of articles on the nsa what i knew about the intel cover-up, the failure of multibillion-dollar fraud, waste, and abuse, and the secret surveillance programs. i knew i was placed under surveillance because they got into my computers at home. a staffer and -- a staffer on the intel committee and others were rated. four month later, i was under surveillance myself. my house was tossed. the nightmare had begun. and they thought i was the leak to the "new york times," because there was no evidence. because there was no evidence, that meant i had done it. remember, the absence of evidence?

i am now target number one during my cooperative time with the fbi. they are accusing me of having gone to the new york times and asking me very specific questions about what i had shared with reporters. they asked me very specific questions in particular not about fraud, waste, and abuse, but about the secret surveillance programs. they were hyper about protecting that program and everything that had ensued since. imagine being across the table

from the chief prosecutor saying : -- the chief prosecutor mr. drake, to you: how would you like to spend the rest of your life in prison? unless you cooperate with our investigation -- i said i will not plea bargain with the truth. i cut off all contact with the fbi. in terms of cooperating with them. i hired a private attorney and spent a lot of money over the next three years. i was charged in secret. in march 2010, then i was publicly indicted in april 2010. i faced 35 years in prison and five counts under the espionage act. now i am on the front page of every leading newspaper in the nation. it was extraordinarily rare. i was the first whistleblower

since daniel ellsberg was charged with espionage. no attorney would represent me pro bono. those who are willing to do so, the firm said that they would have to leave. we had government officials, senior contracting officials that we represent. conflict of interest. i was declared indigent before the court. i had federal public defenders appointed to provide my defense. now you are wondering what happened because i am here, and obviously i'm speaking to you as a free human being. i am extraordinarily fortunate. i cannot say that for the others charged with espionage under the obama administration. i was exhibit number one. they want to make me the example. because you are charged with espionage, there is no public interest in defending you.

your charge like a spy. in fact, the government said that i was worse than a spy. not only was i an enemy from the state, i endangered many american soldiers. i would have their blood on my hands. the level of classification of the documents i had given and retained for the purpose of disclosure to a reporter cause exceptionally grave damage, the highest level of damage, to the united states. it was a really dark corner. i knew i could not prevail in the federal court system. i knew i would have to find a way to influence the court of public opinion and i knew that that would require me to engage the press, not just mainstream media, but alternative press. it was crucial that the truth about my case it out there.

you would think that there are natural allies. you would think that organizations like the aclu would have come to my defense in a minute. they did not. the only organization that actually stuck with me the whole time was the government accountability project. why is that? when your charge of espionage, -- when you are charged with espionage, and i even had family members say that i must've done something. why would the government charge of espionage? i was reminded of daniel ellsberg, the first american charge of espionage for non-spy activities. i remember that. there is an extraordinary human being sitting next to me on my left. she wrote an amazingly powerful op-ed in the l.a. times.

go read it. speaking of the press, i read that and i realized that here was finally, a few short days after i was so publicly indicted, and the supervising official of the criminal prosecution against me have made -- had made very public statements. i read that article and i knew that she got the case. she recognized crucial distinctions between leaking, which is not the public interest, and whistleblowing, which is. i contacted her, and other her -- and under her extraordinary leadership, she defended me in the court of public opinion when no one else would. and she engaged the press and

the full story has not been revealed. we are writing a book, but we cannot find a publisher. it will detail all of this. there is much here beyond what i shared with you. for the next 14 months, i withstood the best that the department of justice had to throw against me. it was an extraordinary -- and extraordinarily aggressive prosecutor doing everything he could to paint me into a dark corner. they, themselves, were strategically leaking certain information to the mainstream press about my case. after all is said and done, i did plead out on my terms. they dropped the felony counts to a misdemeanor. that was for exceeding authorized use of a government computer. that was my act of civil disobedience not involving any classified information.

withauthorized contact someone not authorized to receive classified defense information. that was the truth of my case. it did not matter. i was free. do you know what it means to be free? it means an awful lot. the press was instrumental in my case. they were providing in the front and the background, critical information. it was about this case and what it represents. she got and then got early on , early ongot himself that this was more than just somebody who apparently violated the espionage act. this was really the obama administration far beyond the bush administration.

they were sending the most chilling messages. it was actually a laser beam you focus using me as the cut out to say, press, we are onto to you. we know who your sources are. one thing i did not tell you, and this is not come out fully either, there was a special secret program at nsa after 9/11. it was originally known as first fruits. it was meant to spy on journalists and reporters. find your sources. if we can freeze at your source, guess what? we have the mainstream media reporters in our back pocket. we give them privileged access to hear. >> just so we don't get too despairing here, tell them what the judge. -- what the judge said.

>> 14 months later, the case collapses on the evil public -- the even of the public trial. trial. for history, that was scheduled for june 13, 2011. the 40th anniversary to the date of the publication of the pentagon papers. dan ellsberg himself had already made plans to fight in baltimore and stand on the steps of the federal district courthouse in downtown baltimore and give civic lessons on why what was going on inside the court was so important to the nation. he had the perspective. he knew that this was really serious stuff. the government prevailed in my case -- that would really set back precedent. i knew that. this was not just about me. it was about the future of the first amendment and the future of that extraordinary experiment launched over 225 years ago called the constitution.

the judge during the sentencing, the chief prosecutor continued to make his case. in spite of the sentencing. it was agreed upon. he said, this is unconscionable. it does not pass the smell test. you put mr. drake through four years of hell. we had an american revolution. you do not take 2.5 years to find a way to indict an american. >> he was a bush appointee? >> he was a bush appointee. judge richard bennett. i actually came out of the courthouse and said hey, there is a third branch of government. >> we are going to run out of time for this session. can we get questions? has anybody got a question? over there on the side.

we will try to get you involved. >> hello? >> hello. my name is karen. i work at annenberg. i think you have sufficiently scared all of the journalism students who wanted to be investigative reporters. my question to you is twofold. how is a journalist -- how do you assure a source that they will not be a target if the journalists are being spied onto -- through their phones, computers, laptops? how do you do that? if reporters cannot do that, if they cannot protect their sources, have they abdicated their role? i will take a stab at that.

-- >> i will take a stab at that. i think a big step in protecting , sources, which hardly any journalists are taking, is using these encryption. -- basic encryption. how many people in here are using encryption? i see three hands. encryption should be a requirement for journalists, particularly if you are dealing with high-level sources. >> you realize how astounding this is? not, learn to think, be logical, get the facts, encrypt your material so your own government will not destroy up. -- destroy you. that is an astounding statement. i agree with you, but think about it. these people have all taken a vow. i have sat in this room when almost everyone in the room has voted for obama. right? >> i campaigned for and contributed to obama. this is not an anti-obama -- >> is astounding that that is the advice you would give.

advicegree that is the you need to hear to young journalists. they must learn encryption. >> you have to to protect your sources. >> you are not protecting it from the stasi, from stalin, you are protecting it from obama. >> that is correct. >> that is the day and age in which we live. >> there other things you can do. in terms of protecting my clients, i joke about using drug dealer tactics, but paying cash, throwaway cell phones, encryption, underground parking garages. >> they have video cameras now. you have to be careful. >> at is true. -- that is true. seriously, source protection has become a huge issue. we see whistleblowers being from in jail and prosecuted for espionage. there is no guarantee. you could certainly take her cautions -- precauti

ons. the other one is the level of whistleblowers that i represent, are you willing to go to jail? are you willing to go to jail for your source? that is why there are fewer than 10 reporters in this country who i take my whistleblowers to. one reporter is facing jail. he is a "new york times" reporter. he is facing jail for not testifying against a source, another whistleblower who is being prosecuted for espionage named jeff sterling. >> questions? >> we are talking about whistleblowers. i will speak really loud. [inaudible] >> 10 folks just line up again microphones? -- can folks just line up or get microphones?

>> hello. you are all whistleblowers. we kind of touched on journalism and my question is, the logical progression, first you approach the whistleblower and then you talk about people being prosecuted for refusing to testify. is the logical progression then -- what is happening? there's a threat to prosecute journalists for espionage? is that something that is a possibility in this day and age? can you expand on that? >> i can say that i think the effort against julian assange and that jury is still going as far as i know, they say that they do not have a sealed indictment. they may or may not have one.

they are going after him as a transition case. some journalists like bill keller of the new york times say that he is not a journalist in any way i can recognize. they are cutting themselves loose from him. i think even bill keller drew back from that position and said that he should not be prosecuted. he realized that julian assange would simply be a test case. they would go after him. what is the status of that? it has gone up to the supreme court. >> he one in the district court. they recognized reporters'privilege. a ruled against them in the district court and their petitioning before the supreme court. on julian assange, in the bradley manning court-martial, which the new york times did not discuss until they were chastised by the public editor,

there was a pivotal moment where the judge asked the prosecution if chelsea manning had gone to the new york times rather than wikileaks, would you be bringing this case? you could hear a pin drop. you could hear the wheels spinning. the prosecutors did not know how to answer stop they said yes. -- answer it. and they said yes. that means the "new york times" is just as vulnerable. >> that is still a source. that is still chelsea manning. but what he is asking, and i think,t is right, is, i the movement is definitely to move in the direction of going after the press directly. i think word leaked out around a verizon case. they are saying that testimony is critical. that is why they have to demand to find a source. they are confident now with the electronic surveillance that they do.

they don't really need to go after anyone so directly. they feel that they can find the source. even beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence of who called who and what time. that is how they got a guilty plea out of him -- stephen can kim from the state department. he pled guilty that he had given information to a guy named rosen. the key thing there was to get the exact metadata of when he had called rosen. they put the screws on him that they would give him a higher sentence if he did not come up with a guilty plea. the press has not yet been trekked the prosecuted. -- directly prosecuted. but these various cases may succeed.

there's every reason to think that that will be the next out. >> the director of national intelligence said that people were aiding and abetting and conspiring. anyone who is helping snowden in any kind of way, that would include the lawyers. they could be subject to criminal penalty. that is an incredibly frightening place to be in. >> i was just wondering, what do you guys think makes a good whistleblower? a lot do it out of retaliation. how do you avoid prosecution?

>> shallots to know what makes a good whistleblower. >> the most amazing thing is -- and we have discussed this before, it is not that you guys have dealt with this, that should be the norm. the amazing thing is, where are all the other people? the public is being spied on, how many people knew what was going on in the nsa? >> several dozen. >> where the hell are they? where are the several thousand who knew that their neighbors and everyone else were all being spied on? >> they are just following orders. >> right. decisions are made by people above them. >> your question, if i understand it, is how do we get more people like you? is that it? >> president obama says that he wants -- there is an easy -- he wants no more leaks. there is an easy solution for that. meaningful whistleblower protection. people like edward snowden have someplace to go. the whistleblower protection laws, including the enhancement act and the executive order that snowden could have used

specifically exempts national security and intelligence whistleblowers. including those from the nsa, -- cni, thend i people you would most want to hear from. those people are completely unprotected. >> edward snowden, to answer your question, is someone who i always hoped would come forward. someone who would come and stand on my shoulders. seeing what happened in my case and with others, he would come out with a much larger set of documentation. the nsa andw far secret service had gone in terms of surveillance and beyond. i have some hope, because edward snowden did come forward, that

there are others who may come forward as well. >> i am not a whistleblower, but i think they do not want to too their own horm. horn. the courage that it takes to be a whistleblower, they are too humble to say that. my question is, can you explain if you see a correlation between activism -- hacktivists and whistleblowing? that you are all a product of the digital age. that is all edward snowden has known. there is a clear confluence between being hacktivists who are dedicated to making information free in the public interest and whistleblowers who are in the inside of his government institutions and

corporations, coming out and disclosing information. one of the advantage that they have is that they are very much masters in their own domain of technology. it is one of the things that i have laid down in her talent -- laid down an extraordinary challenge to those in this space. we need better encryption. people are not just losing their jobs, they are being incarcerated and ending up in prison. people like brown, hammond, and any number of others, these are all examples. these are whistleblowers and how activists. acktivists. the government is deliberately going after them. they are targeting individuals to send a much larger message to anyone who dares come forward. what are they really shutting

down? they are shutting down the free flow of information that informs the public with what is going on. >> and legally, they are over processing in the hacktivist community. the way they are using the espionage act to go over whistleblowers. it is a war on information more broadly that can be seen through the war on whistleblowing and hacktivists. in the parallel to the thomas ricks case, looking at someone like aaron swartz they were also , seeking to find a way for 35 years -- once he committed suicide, they said they would have settled for three months. over prosecution is completely sick. but it is meant to send a message. they want to make an example of people like that. just led guilty the other day, and i cannot get into the

details of that. but it is a major heavy-handed charges. he had been so overcharged. >> i'm humbled to be in the presence of the three of you. thank you. >> it is important to remind you all -- >> she is humbled to be in your presence. [laughter] >> i want to ask a question. you have been presented as the anti-snowden. you were the good guy. you are willing to go to jail. 150 years. what were you facing a one point yeah, -- at one point? only 50, ok. [laughter] you were prepared for that. as it turns out, the judge was offered a bribe by the nixon administration and the head of the fbi, who knows where that case would have acted up? nixon overreached. he fixed the judge. i remember being in the court when that happened.

why didn't snowden do that? you are a lawyer. you are presented as a good guy. you were in your house when the fbi broken. broke in.i you have five kids and you worked at an apple store, trying to support your family. take your medicine. be prepared to go to jail for 100 years, knowing damn well that that is not what we teach people. now, you are snowden's lawyer. what is your view? about people saying that he cut and ran. >> my view is that it speaks volumes that the only safe way to blow the whistle right now if you are a national security or intelligence and have that level of information, the only safe way is to blow the whistle from another country. that is a sorry state of affairs for this country to be in. my other nsa whistleblowers, right after snowden revealed himself, they had a press

conference to say that they supported him and understood why he had to go to another country to make those disclosures. in terms of penalties -- you can go ahead. >> snowden, i believe, he looked at these examples, he looked at chelsea manning, he looked at julian assange, and he realized that he had to be out of the country if he was going to put out this amount of information and be able to tell what he had done and why he had done it and to comment as he has been doing. 40 years ago, i was able to speak. i was out on bail throughout my trial. i was able to speak to demonstrations and lectures and this and that. there is not a chance in the world that snowden would have been allowed to do that. he knew it from looking at chelsea manning. he would be in an isolation cell for the rest of his life.

no journalist to this day, 3.5 years after this came out, no journalist has spoken to chelsea manning. no journalist has spoken to chelsea manning. not in four years. no interviews, no nothing. they will not. they are not allowed to speed -- speak to him in prison. snowden had to be out of the country. he learned from that. he learns that you have to put out current documents. one reason and he was saying earlier, what makes a whistleblower? it turns out it is pretty hard to do. we have all been saying that there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of people who knew the secrets and knew the truth, but many of those, perhaps most of them, knew that this involved life or death matters on which major lies were being told.

the truth could make a big difference. and yet they did not speak out. , i think we have to change the culture, the secrecy, change the benefit of the doubt that if -- is given wrongly to politicians in terms of what the public should know and should not know to allow to even think that for example, whistleblowers -- that clapper, keith alexander, or even the president should be the last word on what is going on. it represents a culpable ignorance, unless you are 16 years old. if you have lived there any of these things, these people do not deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point. behind the veil of secrecy, it extremely bad and this asterisk -- extremely bad and disastrous

policymaking goes on. from have learned whistleblowers. without accountability. we learned that from the pentagon papers and from snowden. if we got be a rock papers, which we still do not have, but there have been a number of leaks. the decision-making is very bad. it is not only criminal, stupid, and ignorant to a large extent, it is not subjected to a larger debate, even within the government. not to congress or with the public. the reason that the constitution is not indeed obsolete, it was a good idea then and it is still a good idea, it has to be defended against people, starting with two presidents and their minions, and many people in the press, who after 9/11, we have a new kind of threat here. for which the constitution, 200

years old, was not suited. we need a different form of government. nixon said, if the president does it, it is not illegal. we have no choice but to leave it up to him to tell us what to do. what we get with that type of judgment is the judgment that george the third had during the american revolution. you get vietnam, iraq, and much more seriously, the possibility to this day, outrageously, of nuclear winter. that could come from the alert forces on both sides that have no excuse whatsoever for existing now, and putting the entire world in jeopardy. you have a great deal of information about the climate than what they have yet told. that is why james hansen, i think left the government , recently.

he was being found and squashed for trying to warn us about what was coming with the climate. we need more oversight, we need independent branches, and we need whistleblowers. one thing that would change in this culture, for example, -- i was complaining to bob about the title of this talk. it is called patriots or traitors? not too many people have the opportunity to defend themselves against being traitors. not many people think, thank you for the chance to explain to my fellow countrymen that i am not a traitor, despite all appearances. a lot of people gave me that opportunity 40 years ago. i was thinking, why am i so sensitive to that title at this point in my life? it made me realize that it took me back 40 years.

i identify snowden. -- i identify with snowden completely. i identify with chelsea manning, even with all the differences in our background and our personalities and whatever. i identify with her very strongly. they go over the same trajectory that i do. they acted for much the same reason. they did what i would have done. when it is patriots or traitors, i realize i have to explain why i am not a traitor. if they are a traitor, where am i? i've been saying for three years now that chelsea manning and now snowden are no more traitors than i am. and i find i have to say, "and i am not" to make that very clear. it has taken me back 40 years. i got over fearing that question all the time. i feared it a lot at the beginning. reporters were asking, how does

it feel to be regarded as a traitor. by the way, i was not charged in court. it happens that the constitution narrows the legal definition of traitor very significantly. under george the third, all the signers of the declaration of independence were traitors. five of them were hanged out of the 56 as traitors. they all could have been hanged if they had been found. this country was founded by colony they were born into, they discovered a different loyalty, a higher loyalty to a country that had not existed. it was a large country with a constitutional basis, a bill of rights, and the notion that you could not criminalize telling the truth about the government. that was the country they decided they were loyal to.

and they were traitors to the others. i remember the first time someone called me a traitor. i have never mentioned this that i can remember. it was in 1971. i had just been indicted. i found myself on a program out on bail. somebody at the table, there were three of us -- asked, said, well, you are a traitor. i was so startled by this and i looked at the moderator. as if to say, are you going to let this happen? do you invite traitors onto your program? i took off the microphone and left. i was not going to sit there and discuss whether i was a traitor or not. the camera followed me out of the room. all the way out. people at my trial said, don't do that. that was a mistake. it doesn't look good.

television, they informed me is very cool, and that was a little too hot. questionto answer the about eating a traitor, there is nothing pleasant about it. the fact is, if you are not willing to be called names, like weak -- millions of people have died in vietnam and in iraq. millions. because democrats, my party, were unwilling to be called names. they knew they were false and slanderous. names like week, unmanly, unpatriotic. weak on communism and weak on terrorism. rather than be called those names, they sent people in to die. snowden said that there are things worth dying for.

the truth is that most people narrow that. unless they are in the military, or conceivably in policeman or fireman where it is taken for granted that with a team and acting on authority and doing your function as assigned by society, you should risk your life. then people do it. they are very courageous. you see in combat, the scourge -- this courage is all around. it is the same people. you put a commander in civilian clothes, and others like that, and you put them in a situation where they would risk their career or their clearance or their job or their marriage and children's education. serious risks. but risks, not certainties. rather than take any risk at all for strangers, people who are not on the team, you have to

conclude that most people are willing to see nearly any amount of harm done to other people to avoid that risk without lifting a finger. if we can recognize that edward snowden and chelsea manning are doing essential jobs, one that we need a great deal more with the help of journalists, journalists have to be probing for that and looking for that. they have to be encouraging that. we do not have democracy. it is what our founders risked their lives for. we have something worse and more dangerous. it is up to you and your sources. >> it is interesting that the founders -- after 9/11, this argument -- the fact is that most people in the world live in a nation that has had tragedy as -- that have had tragedies as

big as 9/11 or greater. our founders actually faced far greater risks. if they had gone the wrong way, they, their families, and anyone else would be found hanging from some train. -- from some tree. they put these very provisions in the constitution that these other people after 9/11 wanted to throw out. they did not guarantee free press because they thought the press would always be on their side. they did not guarantee any of these rights thinking that they would be angry. the message that is interesting, how we teach history, and i have said this before, if anybody reads george washington's farewell address to his country, there is some incredible indictment of what he calls -- the imposters of pretended patriotism. these are his words. george washington. you can refer to eisenhower, another great general, who warns about the military-industrial complex and the loss of civil

restraint. i'm going to call on another person. i want to make one statement about the whistleblowers. you mentioned the gulf of tonkin. a decent man, william fulbright, went to the gulf of tonkin resolution to stop it meant that -- resolution, which meant that we were now in this full-blown war. 20 years after the fact, and this was a fact known by many whistleblowers, there had never been a second gulf of tonkin attack. it was a phony. we were not given those documents until 20 years after. they were not present. -- they were not present in debates. we were given the fact that an american ship had been fired on the high seas. in north vietnam, and therefore, we had to go to war. our own government, all of these people, when we got these documents, we realized that there had not been an attack.

i forget this exchange that we had, but when i got these documents, i was at the l.a. times. i went to tom johnson, a marvelous guy, i have great respect for him. he was our publisher. i went to him, and i said, you were in the white house. you were with lyndon johnson. did you know this? bill moyers was in this white house. i'm not talking about the devil's out there. i am not saying they knew every detail. but going along to get along, not challenging, not becoming a whistleblower, when there had to be many people -- those two that i mentioned, they really knew. -- i don't know that they really knew. but there were plenty of people. when i finally interviewed about it, they said, how did you get that? well, the government released it. it just came out. i was thinking that myself, but they never told us.

your basic question is, what is the meaning of this democratic experiment if you can be lied to with such impunity? there is no restraint. it is not a marginal issue. it is the ballgame. >> thank you for this panel. it is really great. after 9/11, we went through a couple changes psychologically. there was this issue of following orders. technologically, with the internet and smartphones, the nature of espionage changed. the nature of espionage also change bureaucratically. from there it seems that the problems that these panel has clearly identified -- i would like to ask, how would that mind,h that framework in

to addresstch up these problems? >> i would be glad to speak to that. in terms of what the fourth estate can do to stop -- it is a multipart question. what whistleblowers can do to try to stop the current state of affairs. for me, i feel that much of the decade following 9/11 at least in the mainstream media, a lot of journalists were behaving as government lapdogs, rather than government watchdogs. i get very frustrated when a journalist says, i cannot hit in government too hard public because i will lose my source. that is a very real issue. after the wiretapping story, one

reporter had his press credentials pulled. to really be a true journalist, i think you need to be able to value your civilian sources as much as your government sources. and not just be a stenographer who copies down government talking points. >> i have a thought on that. let me try it on you too. does your question go further to the technology? >> my question is basically, the problems that have arisen in terms of these infringements on personal liberty in the name of espionage and intelligence-gathering relate to changes in tech knowledge he 9/11 andhnology since the psychological changes that you identify. it is great to the problem, but i am asking you what you see as potential solutions to these problems. within these realms. >> at the strategic level, you have to find -- finds the

-- bind the government down again to the chains of the constitution. just because they have advanced in technology, that does not mean they get a free pass. that is not true at all. the constitution is more than flexible enough to accommodate all aspects of society. it is about individual rights. real intelligence has largely disappeared because it is so easy to collect everything and sort it out later. seize sort of the "sees first, search later" mentality. that puts the paradigm. when you are faced with decisions being made in secret, it does not matter. the technology is a means to an end. you have to protect. it is the same. it is one of your effects. you have it as an individual. if they choose to say it is not protected, the technology does not make it easier. it is simply enabling a choice.

that they have made. that is the choice that violates as an american you as a person. resident legal alien violates your rights. where did they get off getting away is that? because they choose to do so? it is a catch-22. who will stop us? i absolutely resist that notion that somehow they are the ultimate protector. it does not matter what your sovereign rights are. does national security trump everything? i was going to say this, but i will say it now. the traders of your country met in secret in philadelphia to hammer out the constitution of the united states. they made a pact that nothing would come out except madison took notes. in 1843, they were published. we have documented evidence of what the base took place -- debates took place.

benjamin franklin exited the building. history has recorded that a woman reporter came up to him and said, what did you do in there? he reportedly responded saying itrepublic, if you can keep ." ca they knew there were no guarantees. an executive with do their darndest to centralize power and gain unto themselves what they thought they could take. they bound down the executive as hard as they could and may congress the central portion of -- made congress be central portion of our three part government. what happened after 9/11? the technology here -- we have horses and carriages back in the 18th century. that does not matter. it is a living constitution in that regard.

it is an idea of how to govern ourselves. and the fundamental question we have to ask, if it is no longer the constitution is no longer sufficient -- the same question i asked the lawyers at nsa. the same question i asked congress when i go to them of my disclosure. they are saying it does not work. there is a constitutional means to change a law. you know what they told me? they said, they will say no. if we go to congress, they will say no. they will say no. --the question really arises you said, a republic if we can keep it. have we kept it? the answer is no. no, we have not kept it. since 2001, we have in effect -- we have, in

effect, an elective monarchy. it means that it is a country in which the president doesn't and it is legal. -- if the president does it, it is not illegal. that is the attitude. that was the attitude of and advisor to george w. bush. essentially, there are no limits on presidential power except those that he chooses to put on himself. obama, following bush, decriminalize torture. which is as illegal and criminal as anything can be under international law. and the method a lot of. there are a number of laws that we are sworn to investigate and follow up with if there's any credible charge. obama has not chosen to investigate or indict any higher up for that process of torture. take right now.

the 6000 page -- was it two years or four years? >> the torture report. >> 6000 pages and they're doing -- they are arguing now. in a way it is worthwhile to see this argument go on. we will see where obama comes out on it. is sent to him for declassification. obviously, that report should have been leaked. it should be leaked right now. we need not to understand what it is reputed to have revealed. -- we need to understand what it is reputed to have revealed, which is there was no necessity for this torture. there was no effect. far from being essential, it did not contribute in any case to preventing terror attacks. why does that matter?

after all, if it is illegal and unconstitutional. the whole issue was put before the public. the constitution is obsolete. it was overtaken. we have a state of emergency now. it has been formally declared. obama has reinstated it several times in office. how many people actually knew that in this office that obama has formally stated that we are -- reinstated every six months or so that we are in a state of emergency? how many people knew that? let me see your hands. don't be shy. i see about four or five. how many did not know? what is the state of the press if it has not made you aware that we are living in a state of emergency. what does that imply? what regulations does that mean? -- what regulation does that mean the president is free from in a state of emergency? the house member of the

committee over homeland security at precisely that question. -- asked precisely that question. there are classified annexes. to the continuity of government regulations and the state of emergency regulations. can we see those? the answer was no. they are classified. we have the chairman of the house committee on homeland security to extract the for -- to ask directly for those. no, they were not able to get them. this is not a constitutional republic. not that we are talking about here now. if the report says, as it does, and it is 6000 pages, that this was not necessary. in other words, it is criminal, it is not justified by an argument of necessity. it cannot be necessary for did not work at all. over years after years. therefore, it is criminal. absolutely criminal. no question about it. as some people want to

decriminalize marijuana, obama has effectively decriminalize torture. how can the next president ring prosecutions for torture? after the last eight years, after the last 13 years? >> it does remind me that -- does anybody listen to jackson browne? one of my favorite songs. out into the cool of the morning strolls the pretenders. there are no pretenders. we are extraordinarily fortunate. we never ended up in prison. there are whistleblowers in prison right now. there are whistleblowers these -- facing prison right now. there are hacktivists already in prison and facing prison. that is the reality in this country. here is another truth. here is another truth. the two biggest scandals of the

bush administration that have been immunized by obama were sacred -- secret surveillance and torture. the only two people investigated and prosecuted and indicted and convicted of torture in surveillance are myself and one other person. he is currently serving 30 months in a federal penitentiary in pennsylvania. why? blew thee actually whistle as a former cia agent regarding state-sponsored torture. torturename of a tortur or. he is in prison. those who authorized the program, those who approve the program, those who implement the program, those who manage the world torture program have immunity.