thing again, is that then main fear, the colonialism, part of the new colonialism part ok? so colonialism may have become historically in the past, but you just mentioned, i know that up just pretty much the same thing, which is new now live. now, it is an important speech of colonialism. was the physical presence of european powers on the african continent in african countries and the physical expropriation of the resources of the african continent to the foreign war. now, in new colonialism, the western must does not need to be physically present. what they do is now to use, what should i say to me, should i see african agent? first of all, the kind of indication we have received enough because been pretty much a lot to be on the job to the west and disadvantageous to africa. so you have

people in power some times foreign policy in millions of elections in order to get you to come under to be or when some cup receipts. so the, you know, how frequently they. busy who well, pretty much to the masters in you and through them they continue the same plunder that existed in the regime of one of the areas. but let's go back to the home. now you have americans that you have belgians that not too long ago, america, sunshine, it, well, the business man will trade in gold, which is from belgium. and he was moving money in millions of dollars of gold out of the day out. even though you didn't make it american intelligence or just that the better the job business model was actually

a lot of it's gold and that is just go, a lot happens. much of the resources of african countries lead africa aid dead by africans. if i remember what the rodney had written about how you wrote on the lips are prepared, but also an african and so has written about how africans on that. even. so in the new regime of new colonialism, africa, 3 plane, pretty much if you to rule in a gym day european count on the look out. actually sorry too much the structure of the walk in. so when you, when the al is yeah, there are going is not able to reach its full potential, not merely because of western forces, but also because of africa forces accent robert robert are

chicago, graphic priest, thank you so much for joining us here in our tea. until the new usa, i'm still to the dance and have a good back. thank you. how may fully go those news just in from the bottle, from the on most local 30 say the for a inhaled major city of our to mosque has been encircled by russian forces. there has been intense fighting in the air in recent months with western media to do that, you claim forces have been suffering heavy losses. now, russian defense, if you said earlier this week, that the sub of in the city of the town of block that no idea came under russian control, cut it off a main supply route for the current in military buy. that wraps up this news out of it to check out oxy dot com for lots and lots of really interesting stories that we can cover here on the broadcast. but with black hair, the top of the hour will help you just

lou . ah, what do you do if you want to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, or illegality? but you know that if you do, your life will change forever. what do you do if blowing the whistle might put you in physical danger? or what if blowing the whistle might land you in prison? you try to do it anonymously. sometimes that works. the whistle blowers who brought us the panama papers, for example, are still unknown. but others who tried to remain anonymous like drone whistleblower daniel hale and an essay whistleblower reality winner had their anonymity compromised and they both ended up in prison. and john kerry aku you're watching the whistle blowers. 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 blowing the whistle on waste fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety is something that every country should celebrate. many countries have some sort of whistle blower protection law even in national security. but those laws are rarely enforced fairly or equally. sometimes they are ignored altogether, and sometimes national security trumps whistle blowing. even when the whistleblower is exposing a crime, we're joined by an attorney who is not only a hero to national security whistleblowers here in the united states. but she's a whistleblower herself. she tried to remain anonymous and she was outed, and her life has never been the same. welcome to the show jazlyn re deck. thank you . chung jess. you were a senior attorney at the u. s. department of justice working in legal ethics. your job was to make sure that the justice department's attorneys acted within the law and within the guidelines of professional responsibility. but then the september

11th attacks occurred and that many people in government decided that day that the rules would go out the window. you were not one of those people. soon after those attacks, you found yourself involved in the case of john walker lynde, who became known as the american taliban. and it was soon after that that you became a whistleblower. tell us how that happened. it happened because i was in the ethics office and part of my job was to give advice to attorneys prospectively. and that included not just attorneys, but f b i. agents on the ground and we got the news that they had captured a terrorist. and that he happened to be american. so, commensurate with any advice that would give anyone in that situation, i said that they should mirandize him. and that apparently at that point their picture circulating around the world of him being tortured of him naked,

blindfolded, bound, gagged. and, and held in basically a coffin, and i advised that we don't torture people and that those images are unacceptable. and certainly any information they obtain as a result of him being kept in, that kind of captivity would not be in miscible in court. so that was the advice i gave. i gave that in writing. put, i got a call back. that was on a friday. i got a call back on monday saying oops, well, you know, we went ahead and, oh, boy interrogated him. anyway. what do we do now? and i explained, you know, not to worry, you can still use that information for national security and intelligence gathering purposes,

but not for criminal prosecution. then they shortly thereafter used it for exactly that to criminally. prosecute him that you i found out about inadvertently when i learned that there was a discovery order for all internal justice department correspondence related to john walker lynde. so i went to check the file because back then we had paper files . and the advice i had given was missing from the file, right? i happened to be apparently more computer savvy than some of my superior. so i went and called tech support and was able to go through the computer archives the internet at this point. we're talking 2000. 1 is a new thing that's right. especially for the government, which is behind the 8 ball lawn technology. so i was able to resurrect

the missing email and provided to my boss. and i said, i don't know why this was not turned over in discovery, but here it is. and then what happened? because you ended up, you ended up being in touch with quite a prominent journalist, and that's really where your problems began. that's correct. basically, when i learned that the document had still not been turned over to the court, i ended up resigning and i took home a copy of the document in case it disappeared from the file again. and when the government was continuing to pursue this case, and it was evident that this information had not been turned over consistent with brady and cleo obligations. i ended up sharing it with a member of the press. i tried to do so anonymously. i think this was

a blurry blow, the whistle anonymously, because it's not about them. they want people to focus on what they're blowing the whistle on, not on them. unfortunately, because it was the beginning of the internet edge, while newsweek shield to my name from the print edition, my name appeared in the digital version. and that was the beginning of the unleashing of one of the 1st criminal leak investigations of modern time. when you were outed as the source, in this case, your life changed. you were forced to leave a job that you loved. many of your colleagues and friends turned against you and you had trouble finding work here you were a renowned attorney. you had graduated from brown in yale universities to the top schools in the world. and you were having trouble finding a job. you finally found one at a large law firm in washington, dc. but it didn't last long. what happened there?

at that point, the government contacted my private 3rd party employer and told them that they had just hired a criminal. so i had not been charged with anything. i had not received the subject or target letter. my so i, the law firm of course, knew that i would have a claim against them if they just fired me, especially for being a whistleblower. so they put me on unpaid administrative leave, which left me kind of hanging in limbo for a number of months. and in the meantime, i had to lawyer up and get a criminal defense attorney and employment attorney. and the constitutional law attorney, my gosh. and then fall out continued actually you had trouble when you traveled internationally. complaints against you were lodged with the local bar association, but you ended up taking the bull by the horns and you went to work with the government accountability project as their director of national security, representing whistleblowers in national security. in fact,

i'm proud to say that you were one of my attorneys, and you represented also an essay whistleblower tom drake and even ed snowdon, what made you decide to take on the national security establishment? my experience of how i was treated as a whistleblower. i thought if they can come down with the full force of the entire executive branch on a public servant who had been a public servant for a long time because they were just doing their child up and trying to do it. honestly, it made me, i didn't know what it was. so blower was i had the same reaction. most whistleblowers do when my attorney said, you're a whistleblower. so no, i'm not. i was just trying to do my job, right. but after what i went through the fact that the government ended up putting me under criminal investigation and referring me to the state pars and literally started a whisper campaign in my law firm,

which ended up somehow following me even to my own synagogue. i realized how draconian the government can be, how, how brutal and underhanded, but also completely over the top. i was a mom. i had 2 young kids. i was pregnant during part of this ordeal. i mean, it's no public servant, no human period to serve criminal defendants. often have more rights than whistleblowers and they never charged you with a crime if they had him for charged me with the crime. and in fact, the bar complaints, it took 12 years before those charges were finally dismissed by the bar. but it was a cloud. it's just right of damocles hanging over your head to have to tell any potential employer. yeah, i've been referred to the bar, but based on a secret report that i've never seen and don't have access to, you know,

had something called the whistleblower and source protection group. it's a part of expose facts. tell us about the kind of work that you do there. we represent national security and intelligence whistleblower hers mainly blowing the whistle on human rights violations. so that can include the gamut of torture, secret surveillance drone killings. and that's been an entire kind of boutique that we have focused on. we want to protect disclosure that are in the public interests. and unfortunately, a trend that started during your era of using the espionage actually just an incredibly draconian law to go after whistleblowers has unfortunately become normalized and been used primarily on whistleblowers from f b i the c i c i a and say that the power house agencies that run

this country's most significant program and in fact sentences have been getting noticeably longer. have they not? they have they have reality winners. sentence of about 5 years was twice, twice the, the normal 2 and a half years that people had been, had been given. and daniel hale, even, his sentence of 45 months. i mean that was for one count, one count under the espionage act. so the sentences, i mean that's part of the reason they use the espionage act because it is so punitive and one count can carry, you know, 10 years. so we're going to talk about daniel hale again in a minute. but before we get to break, i wanted to ask you one other question. one of the things that i've noticed that they've been doing with whistleblowers is putting them in higher and higher security prisons. stephen kim, the state department whistleblower was in

a minimum security work camp. i was in a low security prison, but daniel hale is in a maximum security penitentiary. is that just just because they can, is that just to make the time that people like daniel hale are serving as difficult as possible. it is unclear why daniel hell is and a communications management unit because there are only 2 in the country and they were created to house terrorists. and daniel had no prior criminal history. he was not convicted or charged with an act of terrorism. it is unclear. ah, how or why he ended up there? ah, but it was alarming certainly to assess his attorney's because his judge had recommended a specific prison on that would have been much lower security and where he could have gotten that therapy that he needed. right. it's not just that he drives over

to prison and turns on the tv and makes himself comfortable. he was do a psychological counseling, a drug and alcohol counseling, which would have shortened his sentence. thank you. jacelyn rate act, but don't go away. we're going to continue our conversation with jaslyn reed at right after the short break, stay to. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ah ah

ah ah, what them back to the whistleblowers rejoined once again by esteemed whistleblower attorney jeslane read at jesse. it seems like we've seen so many whistleblowers who have wanted to remain anonymous who have tried to remain anonymous, but their identities invariably are revealed. and the consequences have been drastic for many of them. the f. b. i whistle blower, terry. all bery, for example, received 4 years in prison. drone whistleblower daniel hale. we mentioned a moment ago received 3 years and 9 months. and as a whistleblower reality winner received more than 5 years in prison. ca whistleblower joshua shulty faces as much as 80 years in prison. is there

a safe way to blow the whistle? can somebody and national security do it without being caught? and then being sent to prison. it's incredibly difficult even when you go through proper channels, a lot of the people you mentioned did try to go through channels at one level or another. but even with successful whistleblowers, even like the white house whistleblower on trump, they still went through the proper channels and still got tangled up in internal channels. i mean, is there a safe way in theory? there is in practice. there are a lot more ways to leak these days, but there are a lot more ways to get caught and whistle blowers are not. you're not assume to be expert at spike craft and keeping your contact with the reporter. secret that's really incumbent upon journalists, especially the ones that hold themselves out as being all about source protection

and basic mistakes were made in number. the cases you mentioned, whether the journalists was just being careless or whether there was a snafu in the way a document got transmitted. it's very easy to get caught these days. it's almost like we're back to the days of meeting in the underground parking garage where you meet in person paying cash, you know, and, and try to do it very out of the sight of cameras, but their cameras everywhere, including and parking lot. it's true and an ongoing theme to especially with national security whistleblowers, is that identifying information is almost always embedded in documents. so if you work for one of the national security agencies and you print a document, your name and your personnel number are embedded somewhere on that document in a period in the door of an eye. and so if the document finds its way to the media,

and then the media sends it back to the agency to ask about whether or not it's a legitimate document. you've just, how did yourself or the journalist has out to you, right? that's correct. a lot of people have been caught basically by measure of data. so not the actual document itself, but something like you said, a marking on the document, a watermark, and something that imperceptible to most people like in reality, winters case. instead of showing a xerox copy of a document to the government, they showed the actual documents. so they could immediately identify where she the, they are for space where she this it occurred and immediately it, it was a bright red arrow pointing to her jeff sterling. that was another case based on meta data. i think it's easy now it's very hard not to leave digital

footprints even when you're using encryption. i would advise any whistleblower to use signal or to get well versed in encryption. but what you can expect a whistleblower to, to have to be well versed in security protocol to be able to get the truth out. and you've reason important point to people asked me all the time. should i be using signal? should i be using what's up or viber? i've always been told that signal is the best, but signals not perfect either tom drake. the say was the blower told me recently that even with signal they can intercept the message before you hit send. they can intercept it as you're typing it because it's not yet encrypted, it only becomes encrypted when you send, when you hit that send button, that's exactly right. the end points are the dangerous points. it may and again, it's people think that it's the content of messages that ends up

basically pointing a finger at the whistleblower. but it's not, it's the who's sending it who's receiving it. and when that's what is getting people convicted, not the content of what they're actually saying. just we've seen whistleblowers in banking or in the legal profession who have been able to maintain their anonymity. i mentioned the panama papers whistleblower earlier in the show. they were very careful where they sent their information. the outlets involved protected their identities, but that hasn't been the case for national security whistleblowers. why do you think that is our counter intelligence agencies really? that good? i think in panama papers, other cases that have more been international dimension, it's probably easier because to not be living in a surveillance state, which is good. the united states has been trending again. people are being caught on metadata is some, it would be impossible for me to take the metro and come here without leaving a huge trail of metadata with buying

a ticket. taking the exact train that i took care walking with the camera on every corner. so it's easier to get caught if you're in surveillance state that has so much monitoring going on. i think also traditionally people who are in the banking arena, including in the u. s. they have protections under dodd frank and the sarbanes oxley act. and. and the false claims act and a whole bunch of other protections that national security and intelligence whistleblowers do not have in this country. there is a specific car out for national security and intelligence employees. so not only, i mean they, they have a statement in the i c, w, p, a saying that they're protected, but there's no enforcement mechanism, right? so you can blow the whistle, but then when the government retaliates against you and comes down on, you will like a ton of bricks. you have no recourse. there is nothing you can do. and in fact,

they will now prosecute you. whereas before, you may have gotten an administrative risk slap or fired, or even blackballed from the industry, now you will go to jail. when i was at the cia i sat next to a woman who was having an affair with someone working for cnn, who had been a senior officer. and in the course of pillow talk, she revealed some classified information to him. he used that classified information in his commentary on the or on cnn, and sure enough, the office of security did an investigation. they immediately figured out that it was her, but they didn't arrest her. they didn't charge her with espionage. what they did is they suspended her without pay for 6 weeks. they put a letter in her personnel file and she was eligible for promotion for, for a year. and that was it. now if that were to take place today,

she would be charged with espionage and would be looking at at least 5 years in prison. that's correct. and then there are whole, there's a whole range of other subtle but career killing retaliatory mechanisms like taking away people, security clearances. so even if they're still free walking around, they can't find a job in the profession. they've been trained in because they can't get a security clearance renewed. so there are the subtle ways and there is no way to contest that there is no way to say you're mistaken. this person is not a security risk. what they blew the whistle on was validated by congress and they still can't get your security clear. yes, you're exactly right. you mentioned metadata a moment ago. one of the things that i fear and tell me if this is a legitimate fear is that when the government or individual companies private companies like the big information companies, apple in google,

and yahoo and whatnot. when they collect this metadata, they have the capacity to save it forever. is that correct? and then the f, b i or the cia or n s, they can go back and draw this information whenever it suits them. that's my understanding. i mean that was an issue with the data retention facility in utah. bill benny had talked about apple. i know you has actually pushed back and said you need a warrant if you want to. but then when, if the government can get a warrant, they will turn over the data. other companies like facebook and twitter, i am not sure the current policy that they have in place in terms of when they will turn over data or not. but i think people do not give it a 2nd thought when they're entering all their personal information willy nilly into facebook. you're making the government's case for them. it doesn't matter if you

don't think you're doing anything wrong or, you know, i'm not doing anything wrong. they wouldn't be interested in me, but it's awfully easy as you know, to construct a circumstantial case around things that actually were meant to be us. i actually said those words, they wouldn't be interested in me and they were very interested in me. you know, one of the questions that i'm asked very frequently is if i would do anything differently, if i were to blow the whistle again and my answer is the same every time the answers, yes. what i would do differently is to hire an attorney before blowing the whistle . that was a mistake that i made because i was forced to be reactive rather than proactive. what advice would you give whistleblowers considering blowing the whistle? yeah, i would. that's exactly what i would tell them, talk to an attorney ahead of time so they can safely walk you through these land mines. also, you need to make a consider determination about whether or not to tell your family what you're doing and how much to tell them. i had not told my family at the time because i wanted

them to have plausible deniability that they didn't know i was blowing the whistle . but at the same time that can end up causing a rif twin. sudden the way you have f, b, i. agents working on your case. so there are a number of considerations i think it's always was to talk to an attorney. unfortunately, 90 percent of people come in my door, you know, or they come in after the fact after they blew the whistle in they are being retaliated. yep. that is exactly what my situation was. that's how you and i met. that's all we have for you today. thanks for i guess jeff lynn rate act, i'm john curiosity and this has been the whistleblowers the. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ah, with

ah, without stories of this, our local authority say a day off the russian to put off major supply routes. believe quin inmate a twitter account sites in alleged us bio labs. a new plane goes viral after being reinstated by the platform is support. numerous claims on the issue visor brushing defense finance accounting from it already loaded the dollar out of the i. m m m on the removal.