too, and he cannot make colonialism on the continent. his remarks came during a meeting with the con, the least president, within the framework of his pilgrimage of peace. its 1st trip by a pope to south sedan on the d. r. c. in decades, the states which have been struggling with long running conflicts have been asking for international assistance to establish peace and security for years. i love the apology. professor at syracuse university says that industrialized countries need to pay more attention to the african peoples rather than the continents resources. talking about more than they do politics were the powerful industrialized countries extracting minerals from countries that are in the midst of the conflicts and may harm and death. so there's congo and sa sudan, and other countries in africa. on all accounts, the pope's call is entirely in place. it has been the call made by the people

in those countries by research shows, by our commitments, by human rights, people all around the world. saying that the exploitation of natural resources in africa has not brought meaningful reward to the people who live on top of these minerals. of all the latest news updates, keeping on our website, our t. v dot com will be back in 30 minutes with more. see them with ah, museums are important for preserving our history so that it isn't lost to future generations. but our physical museums places themselves a relic of the past. this is one of the best museums in the world. huh. carson st. petersburg to help roughly is the director here and i bet he has met

ah, use. 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 whistleblower pays for this career. and in some cases when it's freedom, i'm john kerry and you're watching the whistleblower. 2 2 2 2 2 2 in many whistle blowing cases, the highest stakes are for national security was 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 jacelyn 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 as a 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 outspoken supporters of nash 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 dark, 30 at, and as a headquarters at fort meade, maryland, that the events of the day would 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 but 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 road the 4th amendment rights of us, citizen and others, and then billions of dollars and fraud that 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 realize 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. while 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. i in fact there are there 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 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 in 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 pass in 1978 as, as a consequence of all of the abuses that had unfolded during those hearings in the 900 seventies. 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, it was fine that us citizens, us corporations, and 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 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 then our 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 and authorized, and it's super secret memo bid. 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 is an obvious violation of the law but the, the violation of law and essence now security took priority. now security was, they weren't going to let the constitution get away. i was actually told that it was a queen document. the fight 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 it 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, what i want to do, they'll say no. now this is right after $911.00. this will be for the patriot act was passed. wow. which itself really push the boundaries? but at least there 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 there, 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 to say they just decided to do whatever it is they want to do, thinking that the authorities would catch up with them. the legal and well that's the authorities were being a lawful order political law for order from the president i'd 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 password or recall 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 director at 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 true faith legions to constitution. 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 it was necessary. no, 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 a shed. 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 constitutional statutes. and if it really wasn't keeping up with the times, then you make the case of 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 2 ah ah, none of what is before by the united states all by you when he's actually been fighting a war, essentially to prove, ran, the better done the surgeon. so russian follower, once again in, in this region and saw that it was one of the,

its limits i've won as it is. it's possible, ah ah ah, welcome back to the whistle blowers. 2 we're speaking with an essay whistle blower, tom drake. i'm looking at the case 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, 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 particular 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 mr. flores, 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 in 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 with 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 they think you violated it. it's, you know, it's a lot it's, it's a live, it's live,

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 congressman 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 in short, 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 a legit, the could cause quote unquote, in my case you know, exceptionally great damage to the street and i would state must be true. why would they have charged you otherwise? and so it's, 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 acknowledged 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 quaintly really 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 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 person inversely proportional relationship between the degree to which they 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, sir, real things. and so you literally put your entire professional and personal white

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 it out. if the government violated the, oh, i mean, you would think that there is 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 then 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, no violation to actually reveal the fact that the government classified their own wrong doing. and i remember the penalties all in the direction of 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 higher. 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 considered what the czar, 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 as before, they indicted me. so i was left indigent. i was cleared indigent by the court. i did not have sufficient enough assets to defend myself. well, 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 told me of the american taxpayer, those have 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 case. 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 e b a, which is a huge difference. and i had a judge you realize was that state that i still had, right? as a defendant constitution, right? that's all we have for you today. we'd like to thank our guests and it's a whistleblower tom drake. i'm john curiosity and this has been the whistleblowers . thanks for joining us. we'll see you next time. the. 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 0, i in the year of 1954, the united states of america engaged in warfare against the people of vietnam. the white house supported the corrupt puppet government of southern vietnam. in 1965 americans began their invasion following the aim to defeat the forces of vietnamese patriots. the pentagon was confident that the victory would be on the american side due to its military superiority. however, the vietnamese turned this war into

a total hell for the occupants. unable to cope with guerrillas, the american army started blanket bombing alongside using chemical weapons and napalm which burnt all alive. the village of my lay wearing 1969 american soldiers killed 504 civilians, including 210 children, became a tragic symbol of this war. all in all, during the whole period of this conflict, the usa dropped on vietnam more than $6000000.00 tons of bombs, which is 2 and a half times as much as on germany during the 2nd world war. in 973, the american army under the pressure of the rebels, withdrew from vietnam. and only 2 years later did the puppet regime in saigon fall . however, the vietnamese paid a high price for their freedom. more than 1000000 vietnamese people became the

victims of american aggressors. what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development, only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time to sit down and talk in i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my your show. certainly why watch something that's so different. my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else, work of it please. if you have the state department, the cia weapons, bankers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead,

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 way you think . a breaking news, the u. s. suits down what they call the chinese bible. do know that the atlantic ocean, despite page in this thing via craft, was just the home. this with one person is killed and at the for a fit trap printer level. and i found the latest round of ukrainian shelling kids residential areas that don't. yes, brazil's president refuses to send to weapons. the key of here is international efforts to bring peace to you. a .