well that we do, that's going to be slow in implementing the love for the latest news updates, discussions on debate, you can check our website a ah, with by the middle of the 19th century, practically the whole of india had been under the rule of the british empire, the colonial authorities had imposed that heavy death bringing the people into poverty and were exporting natural resources. and moreover, these authorities absolutely had no consideration for the provisions of the local

population, treating them like 2nd class citizens. the british were showing signs of disrespect even to those and cooperated with them. the fact of ignoring the religious beliefs of the hindus led to the mutiny of the sea boys, mercenary soldiers serving under the british crown. 3000000000 began on the 10th of may 1857 in the garrison town of may river, north of india. in the form of a mutiny. the rebels quickly took over daily. the heroic resistance of the indian people lasted for one and a half years. however, the forces were not equal. the colonial authorities dealt with the rebels cruelly thine slaves the boys were tied to the mouth of the cannon and were shot right through their bodies for the amusement of the public. this type of execution was called the devil's with the obliteration of the mutiny resulted in the death of 800000 inhabitants of india. however, the british empire never broke the free spirit of the indians,

and there will resist ah ah ah, 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 essay. and in some cases the white house itself,

oftentimes that was of lower pays with his career. and in some cases with his freedom, i'm john carry aku 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 essay, 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 in their whistle 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 jeslane 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 and he 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 dragged net survey 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 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 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 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 911. 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. 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 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, 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 fine 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 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 then 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? what? no laws against breaking the law. but they did it anyway because they could and they had top cover. they had the president 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 them. vice president cheney. that was the only copy it was that secret. insane. were you ever get charlie and say it really? it's an obvious violation of the law. let's see the violin. 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 that the 5 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 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 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 secrets is system. i'll permit that. 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 of well that's the authorities were being

a lawful order political lawful order from the president nighted 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 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 it just so happened

a given my position within the signals intelligence director, it, you know, it's the primary directory and then it 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 station, if i just sort of let it go by and i was actually prime a primary i witness to prime of facial 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 necessarily know 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, 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? 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 a paper 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 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 2 2 blue with none of what is before, by the united states all by you when he's actually fighting a war, essentially to prove when the better done the surgeon. so crushing forward once again in, in this region, and saw that, that is one of the limit i've, what is it, is it possible? ah,

some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities and other countries. the united states of america is different. wearable people long to be free, they will find a friend in the united states. ah, with you little bit about it all to anybody. phase the only city in p jaw. you look at the incentives of each cigarette. a few 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 don't that he did to everybody them. okay. yeah. doing training course. so no, we just say low their soft power. i mean the final goal of these thing revolutions

is to ensure that there are no independent players in the world anymore. ah, welcome back to the whistleblowers. 2 we're speaking with an essay whistleblower tom drake. i'm looking at the case of ugh, of daniel hale and 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 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 in the channels are not protected. as i said earlier, they're 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 or 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, it's strict liability. so you can't even claim or pursue, or present a public interest defensive 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 now. security whistleblowers chicken because they defer to the security 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, it's an uphill battle. even with some of the voices you mentioned in congress, my experience was not, it was not all positive. i had

a private conversation with widens office. 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 really galaxy. 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 got, they've got to get a lawyer be there. they've got to get a law even before the blow, the whistle, just given 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 defense 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 an in 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 and 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 life on the lie. yes. if you're going to come out and remember the vast majority of mastery 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 the 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 keep hiding it because it's classified. so if you could to reveal that part, that's also a violation, no violation to actually reveal the fact that the garment classified their own wrong doing. and i remember the penalties all in 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 life 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 skill the 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 does are because even with the support of an attorney, and 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 me, so i was left indigent. i was cleared into didn't 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 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 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 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 with the next time. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ah, i rick sanchez and i am here to plead with you whatever you do, you do not watch my yourself seriously. why watch something that's so different. my little opinion that you won't get anywhere else spoke of it,

pleases you to have the state department, the c i a weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 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 dwayne thing at this hour. american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from great pain. a with

food and medicine supplies and freedom with ah, president biden says, the suspected chinese spy balloon has been shot down over the atlantic on an order he issued back on wednesday. paging insisted the croft was just a hall. this weather dry also at least one person is killed and that's it for our fear trapped under rubble up to the latest round of ukrainian shelling kits, residential areas its own yet result president refuses to send weapons to kia via does international efforts to bring peace to ukraine with.