does not him, does the silver come out? so any final thoughts you'd like to share before we bring this debate to a close? rella, i think the other spot has all most agreed to what i have said. you know, and you get off about politicians using program speeches. now i can cite in innumerable number of examples where you have, you know, you have program to your speech and you have decided that whatever has been dictated in that program to speech of us, you are going to read that out in front of the populate in the in front of the audience where you have gone far, everything admitting, but then the audience, one thing to hear something else from you and not the faculty of speech, you have program. you know. now, in that kind of a scenario, our robot or our program speech of occupational intelligence cannot be a replacement for something which the audience wants to hear, which is very different from the program speech. now we didn't bear your intellect

town, so it is bad. we had it instead where, where your instant connect with the people can see, you know, and to read your political thinking helps you out. now, in those kind of a scenario where the audience wants to hear in something from you, from what you wanted to say origin out there or robot or the order of program programming crew, artificial intelligence cannot be replacements. you have the human being part certainly hasn't reached those nuances just yet, but i do think that we have settled the debate. wanted for all gentlemen. thank you very much for your time and your input. the de luca longo, artificial intelligence research and dot com all the foreign policy. but pleasure to get your thoughts today. thank you. thank you. it was the main stories for this . i do check out our website, our social media pages from all. i'm peter scott. i me back again, the top of the hour. thanks for watching. the

who's in many whistle blowing cases, the highest stakes are for national security with the blowing. it takes a great deal of fortitude to take on the power and the authority of the f. b. i the cia, the essay, and in some cases the white house itself, oftentimes the, was the lower, pays for the career. and in some cases when it's freedom, i'm john curiosity and you're watching the whistleblower. 2 2 2 2 2 in many whistle blowing cases, the highest stakes are for national security whistle blowing. it takes a great deal of fortitude to take on the power and the authority of the f, b i the cia, the n s a. and in some cases, the white house itself, oftentimes the whistleblower pays with his career and in some cases with his freedom. national security whistleblowers are often under more scrutiny than

corporate or other governmental whistleblowers because of the presence of classified information. covert programs or sources and methods and there was a blowing. it's one thing to speak truth to power, but it's an entirely different thing to speak truth to power, to be fired from your job, to be prosecuted under the espionage act for it. and even to go to prison even when you know that what you did was right, just asked chelsea manning just lynn rate act reality winner. geoffrey sterling, daniel hale or edward snowden. i can tell you the same story. our guest today has had that very same experience, he valued as those to the constitution, any paid for it with his career. at the same time, he nearly lost his freedom. tom drake was a senior and a se officer who blew the whistle on essays dragnet, surveillance of americans in the immediate aftermath of the september 11th attacks, he was fired, arrested, prosecuted, and exonerated. and he has become one of the most important and out spoken

supporters of national security whistleblowers in america. tom, welcome to the show. tom, for those of our viewers who don't know you, you were one of the 1st national security whistleblowers following daniel ellsberg release of the pentagon papers way back in 1970. i don't believe that it's possible to, to overestimate the importance of what you told the american people, your story starts on september 11th, 2001. tell us what happened. yeah, that was my 1st actual day reporting to my new duty station. of course, i didn't know when i arrived at o dark 30, and as a headquarters at fort meade, maryland. that the events of the day but unfold as, as they did. and so the horror of the, of the tower is coming down and the pentagon attack, you know, it was a frozen day. i know exactly where i was. and what i was doing,

especially since it was my 1st actual day on the job, and then it became clear within just a few days of 911, that the failure to keep people out of harm's way was used as an excuse to massively a road the 4th amendment rights of us, citizen and others, and then billions of dollars and fraud and waste as well as cover up of what turned out to be some really critical, 911 intelligence failures. all that unfolded within weeks of 9911. and then really you, immediately after 911, you realized that something was, was very wrong. you realized that while and if they had access to a new program that could have kept us safe at, at a reasonable price. i might add,

they decided to go with something that allowed dragnet surveillance, even of american citizens, tell us about that. well, it's quite a historical irony because of abuses in the past. and this is something to say is, let's say quite. they don't like, they don't like to talk about their abuses from the 50s, sixties and seventies, under the cloak and banner of mass security and secrecy. in fact, they're, they're actually embarrassed by it. but it all came out in the 19 seventy's. when was when i was a teenager and i certainly was well aware of all the areas that took place, particularly in congress. in fact, people are finding out that there was even an an essay that existed for the very 1st time a super secret agency. so here we are, 911, just unleashed, all that, it was just, there was no guardrail, there was like, hey, you know, we can just collect at all why not, let's start doing it because we don't know where the next threats coming from. and

it's understandable that panic, right? the panic of when would the next attack occur? that they would be incentivized? i'm going to say that incentivize to bypass the 4th amendment and the existing statute at the time. the foreign intelligence surveillance act, which was actually passed in 1978 as, as a consequence of all of the abuses that had unfolded during those hearings. in the 1900 seventy's. when you saw this evidence of wrongdoing essay you went through your chain of command, which is what we're all taught to do when we 1st enter into governmental service. in fact, you stuck closely to your chain of command. when you saw that an essay was breaking the law, you went to your superiors, you went to the inspector general. you went to the pentagon's inspector general because an essay is. busy is an adjunct of the, of the defense department, and then you went to the congressional oversight committee. now that is exactly

what we are told to do. and they ended up rewarding you with more than a half a dozen felony charges, including more than several counts of espionage. of course, you had committed espionage and those charges were all dropped. but this is what national security agencies do. is there any way to explain why this was the course of events in your case? because you went through the chain of command. why weren't your complaints addressed and investigated? because there was an active cover up of just how far we had gone off the rails in terms of the law and the constitution and the protections afforded by the 4th amendment. and in the secret world, it was, you know, it's fight that us citizens, us corporations, and you know where they are. resident aliens, resident foreigners, were protected by, by the 4th amendment. and they made a decision at the highest level of to it, including the president united states, to authorize, bypassing all that. and so they were in direct violation the law. they knew it,

but they actually covered it up. they, there was one of the deepest of the deep secrets of the now security establishment all way up to it, including president bush and vice president cheney. now it's a part, even of an essays charter that it's not permitted to spy on american citizens or u. s. persons, anybody, even in the united states on a, on a green card. but they do that every day anyway. how is that? because yeah, you get away with it. yeah, that's what this is, this is the reality is, and a lot of people are just old. how could they just break the law with no laws against breaking the law? but they did it anyways because they could and they had top cover. they had the president authorized and it's super secret memo. did the only copy that exist? it was in the chief of staff's office and in fact, in his say,

david adding to who was chief of staff to vice president cheney. that was the only copy it was that secret. insane. were you ever get charlie and say it really right. it's an obvious violation of the law, but see the vial is so law and essence, nash security took priority. now security was they were going to let the constitution get away. i was actually told that it was a queen document the the fighter couldn't keep up with the times. this i heard actually get conditions. you don't understand mr. drake. because i said, what are we doing, violating the law. and if you remember that we go back to congress and i was told i was actually told by the chief counsel in the general counsel's office. that if we go to congress, why do i want to do those? say no. now this is right after $911.00. this is before the patriot act was passed . wow. which itself really push the boundaries?

but at least it was legislation formulated by congress, right? and then signed into law by the president. this is before that, this is that period before that. and so, yeah it's, it's quite something and you can imagine knowing they're violating the law wilfully and deliberately that they're going to have to cover it up. that's again, one of the realities of, of a secrecy regime when you're incentivized to keep high, keep a hidden what you're actually doing. and the secret is system. i'll permits it when i was at the ca, in the immediate aftermath of the 911 attacks our director for counterterrorism said very plainly, we're going to start killing people, lots of people. and i remember thinking, well that's, that's against the law. we're not supposed to be able to kill people. and, and a colleague of mine said, oh,

the law will catch up to us. meaning will change the law to allow us to kill people, not the law will catch up to us. if we kill people will be prosecuted for and i think the same thing happened didn't say they just decided to do whatever it is they want to do, thinking that the authorities would catch up with them. the legal, well that's the authorities were being a lawful order clinical law for order from the president states. and i think one of the ironies here, again, another irony is that the law would catch up meaning, but you can't, you can't pass order. ex post facto was now legalizing what was actually unlawful, and that's precisely what they did. a number of years later, when all of this started to come out and it's the end, the 1st inkling of it was a front page above the full article and the new york times that was published in december of 2005, 20054 years after the fact tom were you ever given any honest

explanation for why you were targeted? you didn't reveal any classified information. you didn't go to the media yet, the government came down on you like a ton of bricks. did you ever learn? why exactly? they wanted to make you the scapegoat. yeah, i knew too much. i mean i was in a very senior position. i was hired in from the outside and i just so happened to, given my position within the signals intelligence directorate, you know, it's the primary directory and say for collection and analysis. and also, you know, production dissemination of, of actual intelligence reports. and so i found out about all this, right, and i wasn't going to remain silent. you know, i, i would not have been holding truth, they've been legions to teach. and if i just sort of let it go by and i was actually prime of primary eye witness to prime of face evidence regarding the

violations of the 4th amendment vice. and what they call you said 18, which was the bible. they say that govern. it was a series of signals intelligence basically the protocol is by when janice, a doctor saw to not violate constitution and still collect intelligent, the irony of it and none of this should have happened. none of that was necessary. now he still went ahead with that. you're absolutely right. you know, you've just reminded me of something to every national security whistleblower that i've ever encountered, including you is able to recount taking the oath of office on his 1st day in governmental service where we put our right hand in the air. and we swear to, to defend and uphold the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. and i always say that i hate to think back on that day and think that i was the only one in the room who actually meant it. do you have the

same experience? no, you're, you're, you're giving me goosebumps, john. because i realized that i was the only one at the time. i did have other fellow, but they end up retiring and i was left alone. i was the only one that actually stood up. i was the only one that actually just said, i've got to show, you know, i became a, i became a material witness for several investigations. i also did make people decision, but that was years later to go to the press. right. but yeah, as like the only one in the room is i here i am and here's what was sir real john is i found myself defending the constitution against my own government in secret? yes. it's just or william to think about it and it wasn't necessary. we didn't actually have to go off the rails or off the range. it was not necessary. we could

have stayed with in the ideals and not just the ideals, but the principles of the declaration of independence, of course, as well as the constitution. all the statutes and if it really wasn't keeping up with the times, then you make the case with congress. you're watching the whistleblowers. we're going to take a short break and then return to our conversation with the national security agency whistleblower tom drake. stay tuned. the. 2 2 2 2 2 2 0, in needs to come to russian state to little never at the time i'm phoning awesome fever. i'm not getting calls. i'll send send up a within the 55 when. okay,

so mine is 2000 speedy one else with little ban in the european union. the kremlin, yup, machines the state on to russia for date and split our t sport that even our video agency, roughly all band on youtube. with some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities and other countries. united states of america is different. wearable people long to be free, they will find a friend in the united states. ah, with

a little bit about it evolved anybody? basie. so the city, if you draw, you look at the incentives of each cigarette you color revolutions, is one among several means to reach the goal of conquering foreign lands and bringing them onto the help of u. s. western economic interests. to popping sadie, i did that. he did to that group morris. yes. do you think coral active soul? no, we just say loaded soft power maybe can the final goal of these thing revolutions is to ensure that there are no independent players in the world anymore. ah

ah ah ah welcome back to the whistleblowers. 2 we're speaking with an essay whistleblower tom drake. i'm looking at the case of odd of daniel hale and doug. there are other recent whistleblowers. do you believe that there's been any progress that national security whistleblowers have made in the last 15 years or so? or are we moving backwards? you know what we're daniel hale received a longer sentence reality winner received yet and even longer sentence 5 years in 3

months. i believe it was. do you think we're making any progress at all? here? the turn lines are not positive. the trend lines and cheese you extend out the punishment or the to meet it out on whistle particularly it's now security. garment literally does not take kindly to exposure is what i call state crimes. and it is a crime against the state to do so. and that's like condra, and they, they, they ask us, act is become the go to and other variance of it's the go to, to go after next year whistleblowers. the government also knows that there is no recourse to the court system. so they can retaliate against you and you really have no recourse there. the channels are not protected, as i said, are there. are there really exposure channels?

so unfortunately, any time, any kind of whistleblower and there's been several over the years. there's always a huge car about cut out for nash security whistleblowers. they just, they don't get the same the same attention because the government clearly does not . you know, you would think that a massacre whistleblower of some of the most critical public interests whistleblowers of all the whistleblowers and the just given the nature of the secrecy system and the classification system. and yet see the word classified as sort of sacrosanct within the government. space, so if they think you violated it, it's, you know, it's a lot it's, it's a live, it's live it's, it's strict liability. so you can't even claim or pursue, or present a public interest defense of any time. and there's no current legislation that

permits it. tom, there's a small handful of members of congress. i'm thinking specifically of senator chuck grassley of iowa, senator ron wyden of oregon and congressmen, thomas massey, of kentucky, who take national security whistle blowing seriously and often help whistleblowers who are trying to navigate this really very daunting and risky system that we have . what is your experience been on capitol hill? why is it that more members of congress aren't out there demanding that the executive branch of the government obey the law, ensure transparency and respect. the constitution just seems so basic. it does seem incredibly basic, and my experience with congress is, with a couple of exceptions that you've mentioned, are not willing to stand up for and ask her to whistle bars chiller because they deferred the nashikuru establishment because they, they assume that whatever the government is alleging the could cause, quote, unquote, in my case, you know, exceptionally great damage to the street and i states must be true. why would they

have charged you otherwise? and so it's an uphill battle. even with some of the voices you mentioned in congress. my experience was that it was not all positive. i had a private conversation with widens office and they acknowledge the reality of what even they're dealing with. but it's not the battle. and you know, he's on the, it has been a long standing member of the senate select committee. unintelligence, the u. s. government has a whistleblower protection laws you mentioned, but the national security whistleblower is notoriously exempt from its protections when a national security whistleblower decides to report on evidence of waste fraud, abuse or illegality. he quite literally jeopardizes his career. what advice would you give somebody in the national security community who's considering blowing the whistle by the 1st thing they've gotten, they've got to get

a lawyer be there. they've got to get a law even before the blow the whistle just give in my experience and others that have followed is crystal clear. the garment thinks in any way, shape or form that you, that you may have exposed, quote unquote, national defends information. or sometimes it goes like the cover for classified information they're going to come after you, especially. and i would say there's a new verse, inversely proportional relationship between the degree to which i'll come after you and what the sensitivity is of the crimes and the wrong doing that they have committed, have covered up behind the secrecy system. again, it's another one of those surreal things. and so you literally put your entire professional and personal wife on the lie. yes. if you're going to come out and member, the vast majority of master whistleblowers do so anonymously this. they don't do this for fame. they don't certainly don't do a for profit. it is not some,

some ideological thing. it's literally because especially in the us government, you took an ethic darman violated the oh, i mean, you would think that there's a higher standard. you would think that standard is you can't use secrecy as an excuse to commit wrong doing and then cover it up and they classify it and then hide it because and keep hiding it because it's classified. so if you could reveal that part, that's also a violation, violation to actually reveal the fact that the garment classified their own wrong doing. and i remember the penalties alone, the executive order are the same for over classification or miss classification, or the abuse classification. no one has ever been held accountable as only those like myself and others in you. right? that's right. you have experience the blunt and instrument of the government

dropping by hammer of these, these felony statutes on top of you. and it's extraordinarily difficult. my wife has never been the same sense. you know, i lost my, i don't have a pension. i went into severe debt. your relationships get all messed up. you know, it's like what it, what were you thinking? what were you doing? right? why did you do it? you're one person, right? so it's very easy for the government to isolate you from from the rest of society and mit, turn you into a pariah. indeed, that's been my experience and my experience i know was, was parallel with years. what's the best way that people can help or encourage others considering becoming whistleblowers? you and i are of one mind when we say hire an attorney before you blow the whistle . hire an attorney skilled in whistleblower protection. before you blow the whistle,

what other? not just any attorney. yeah. yeah, right. go ahead. not any attorney, and then carefully consider what the, what those are. because even with the support of an attorney, and then i ended up with a public defender. i had an attorney, but i ended up spending all of my liquid assets, pretty much all of them went into severe debt just to pay for it. and now before they indicted, so i was left indigent. i was cleared indigent by the court. i did not have sufficient enough assets to defend myself. i mean level, i mean that means paying for an attorney, right? and so i ended up, i ended up. i had to cast my lot with the public defender's office, ironically paid for the same funds. but it just, i thought may oh, the american taxpayer that was paid for my defense. now fortunately, i didn't up in prison, but i came awfully close. i don't,

and this is something people don't fully appreciate how close i came to ending up in prison. i think in part because i was sort of the 1st major a yes. the 1st whistleblowers since ellsberg, the government tried everything. there's all kinds of things they tried. i was also in maryland, i. ready i d, e b a, which is a huge difference and i had a judge, you realize what was that state that i still had, right? as the defendant constitution, right? that's all we have for you today. we'd like to thank our guests, n s a whistleblower tom drake. i'm john curiosity and this has been the whistleblowers. thanks for joining us. what the next time the. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 lou

ah hi, i'm retention and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else. look of it please, or do you have the state department to see a weapon makers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations, choose your fax for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my show, stay mainstream, because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the wave thing. oh no, no. what is be spoken by the united states all by you when he's actually fighting a war, essentially to prove, when the better done the surgeon. so russian follower,

once again in, in this region and saw that is one of the limit i've, what is it? is it possible a form person is reportedly wounded and up to 5 bit trapped under rubble of the latest round of ukrainian shutting heads. residential areas. i've done yet, i know that it never intentionally violated any thought bring control territory. was washington accuse evasion of spying on the earth. with a balloonist floating across america on the g 7 nation to impose a new price cap on russian oil to put moscow's revenue. as improved in says the country, not a full fuel to state property restrictions with.