>> i think daniel ellsberg is the most constructive example. because in modern times, he is considered, widely to be a rogue. if you point out he was a defender of edward snowden, almost everybody will try to distinguish the two. if you don't look at how daniel ellsberg is talked about a 1971 and 1972, the court, the government, the media, by most americans, you would talk about him in the same terms as edward snowden. over time he was vindicated. i think history still appreciated the information he let us know about what the government was doing. all that died away and we realized he engaged in an incredibly heroic self-sacrifice he did not need to do for the public good, and i am convinced edward snowden already today

participating in the discussion is daniel ellsberg and thomas drake. also hear from a former ethics advisor to the justice department who now advises snowden. from the university of southern california, this is two hours 10 minutes. [applause] flayed a leading role in defending snowden is a lawyer. i love having her here because i am all for models of people who don't sell out. and so much of what we teach is selling out. we test people so they will be able to make a lot of money, go on to great success and rarely asked the questions what are you going to use these skills for? excelledis who clearly in the american university system and is -- and has devoted andlife and went to yale really doing her like work that puts her at risk. without taking more time, one of you set the stage of why we are here. >> thank you, bob. thek you very much to annenberg school for communication and journalism in partnership with my organization, the government accountability project. the government accountability project is the nations leading whistleblower organization.

i was the first whistleblower since daniel ellsberg was charged with espionage.no attorney would represent me pro bono. those who are willing to do so, the firm said that they would have to leave. we had government officials, senior contracting officials that we represent. conflict of interest. i was declared indigent before the court. i had federal public defenders appointed to provide my defense. now you are wondering what happened because i am here, and obviously i'm speaking to you as a free human being. i am extraordinarily fortunate. i cannot say that for the others charged with espionage under the obama administration. i was exhibit number one. they want to make me the example. because you are charged with espionage, there is no public interest in defending you. your charge like a spy. in fact, the government said that i was worse than a spy. not only was i an enemy from the state, i endangered many american soldiers. i would have their blood on my hands. the level of classification of the documents i had given and retained for the purpose of disclosure to

he mentioned daniel ellsberg as setting the marker for whistleblowing and such cases.he is the most well read person i know and he never gets anything wrong i think when i met you, i thought of u.s. sort of a conservative originally because you had been not only in favor of the vietnam war, you actually participated. you've been in the press corps and the marines before that and in the defense department and so forth. we were having in our unit in this country over whether this war ahead any sense, whether it was justified and i wrote a pamphlet called how the u.s. got involved in vietnam and it was based on what i could find in interviews and so forth. lo and behold, we had the pentagon papers. the pentagon papers settled those debates. basically, if we think of democracy being based on an informed citizenry, we had no way of knowing what was really going on in our name because it was all classified. but the pentagon had decided to do a study of what this war was all about. and this study, which daniel ellsberg revealed, and tony russo, first of people in government a

let me introduce an old friend, daniel ellsberg.when thomas spoke earlier he , mentioned daniel ellsberg as setting the marker for whistleblowing and such cases. and influencing him. most of the time when i am influencing dan, i get it wrong. well-known person i know and he never gets anything wrong i think when i met you, i thought of u.s. sort -- i thought you were sort of a conservative originally. because you had been not only in favor of the vietnam war, you actually participated. you've been in the press corps and the marines before that and in the defense department and so forth. and we were having this argument in this country over whether this war ahead any sense, -- made any sense whether it was , justified and i wrote a pamphlet called how the u.s. got involved in vietnam and it was based on what i could find in interviews and so forth. and then lo and behold, we had , the pentagon papers. the pentagon papers settled those debates. basically, if we think of democracy being based on an informed citizenry, we had no way of

>> i think daniel ellsberg is the most constructive example. because in modern times, he is considered, widely to be a rogue. if you point out he was a defender of edward snowden, almost everybody will try to distinguish the two. if you don't look at how daniel ellsberg is talked about a 1971 and 1972, the court, the government, the media, by most americans, you would talk about him in the same terms as edward snowden. over time he was vindicated. i think history still appreciated the information he let us know about what the government was doing. all that died away and we realized he engaged in an incredibly heroic self-sacrifice he did not need to do for the public good, and i am convinced edward snowden already today around the world is very much viewed in those terms and in in a store ago view will be viewed in more of those terms around the world and in the united states. >> he is a change agent. i think people understand this much too narrowly. you only get to be a whistleblower, first of all, if you do certain prescribed steps to blow th

daniel ellsberg was a figure getting much less support than he deserved at that time. >> thank you.stening to bob that makes me wonder how much did you learn from the pentagon papers? the material wasn't actually in the pentagon papers and they had looked into it and you have more than they had in many ways about the origins but on the other hand you had quite a bit but then the pentagon papers that were top secret. when was the study, 65? >> i went in 64 and 65 in the study, it was interesting because the study was published by robin hutchins. >> what year did it come out? >> 66 -- 65 but woe is amazing about when i delivered my study there was justice douglas and henry luce. this was the establishment organization and this goes to the question of how do you prove something. they'll told me i was full of it. this can possibly be and they all have their friends so my point is the public debate was always a loser because we were not given the information that we validated. that is what you supplied. >> well people on the left had been, like that the time, had been saying when it came

speakers include daniel ellsberg. here is part of what he said. snowden look at these , he realized he had to be out of the country if he was going to put out this amount of information and be able to tell what he had done and why. 40 years ago, i was able to speak. i was out unveil. -- i was out on bail. snowden would not of been allowed to do that. he would have been in isolation like chelsea manning for the rest of his life. no journalist has spoken to chelsea manning. -- journalist has spoken to chelsea manning. no interviews, no nothing. they won't, either. they won't be able to. snowden had to be out of the country. he learned that you need to put out a lot of documents and need to be current. reason that makes a whistleblower, it's hard to do. people knew the secrets in you the truth. new that these involve life or death matters on which lives -- lies were being told. the truth could make a great difference but they did not speak out. we have to change the culture of secrecy. would you change the benefit of the doubt that is given to politi

charged under the espionage act was giving information to the press and not to a foreign enemy was daniel ellsbergas we know that prosecution fell apart before the kosygin job in of the legal theory could be tested. this was good for ellsberg. perhaps not good for the doctrine. we might've gotten some interesting doctrine at a time when the supreme court might've been more receptive to that kind of critique. just a few years later in 1979, the general counsel of the cia testified to congress that he couldn't say for certain whether leaks to the press, classified information were even prohibited by criminal law. he said the espionage act made it a crime. i'm quoting, we have had in this country for the last few years and absently unprecedented crime wave here because of sure there've been thousands upon thousands of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, all criminal acts, yet none has ever been prosecuted. how times have changed. i don't think we would hear the cia general counsel testified to that effect in the. in the recent court filing the department of justice argued that leaks t

person ever charged under the espionage act was giving information to the press and not the enemy, daniel ellsberg. that prosecution fell apart before the constitutionality of the legal theory could be tested. this was perhaps not so good for the doctrine. he was sold the law clerk for the judge had lit -- written a long memo that said they would have violated the first amendment. we may have gotten interesting doctrine at a time the supreme court may have been more receptive to that critique. a few years later in 1979, the general counsel of the cia testified to congress he could not say for certain whether leaks to the press and classified information were even prohibited by criminal law. he said if the espionage -- "we have had in this country and absolutely unprecedented crime wave, because there have been thousands upon thousands of disclosures, and non-has ever been prosecuted. how times have changed. i do not think we would hear the general counsel testified to that effect now. the department of justice argued that leaks to the press are more pernicious than spies telling secrets to a forei

speakers including daniel ellsberg. here is part of what he said. snowden look at these examples, look to chelsea manning, looked at julian assange and realize he had to be out of the country if he was going to put up this amount of information to be able to tell why he had done and to comment as he has been doing. i was personally, 40 years ago, i was out on bond and throughout my trial i was able to speak at demonstrations. there isn't a chance in the world that snowden would've been allowed to do that and he knew looking at chelsea manning. day, 3.5,ist to this almost four years now, no journalist has spoken to tell cementing. note -- chelsea manning. not in four years. no interviews, no nothing. they won't either. you cannot speak to him in prison. snowden more or less had to be out of the country. toalso learned that you need put out other documents, current documents and all the more reason he had to be out. one reason -- what makes a whistleblower? it is pretty hard to do, it turns out. dozens, hundreds, thousands in some cases of people knew

students are hearing from edward snowden's lawyer just one radek the man behind the pentagon papers daniel ellsberg and n.s.a. whistleblower thomas drake my own government unchained itself from the constitution a silent coup against the constitution placing itself. granting itself authority to engage in emergency powers emergency powers and we've been operating in that mode ever since truth be told and a series of decisions are made as a result of the failure of nine eleven we have to remember nine eleven was fundamentally a failure but do you is because the government is too big to fail. it was used as an excuse to engage in a whole series of activities and operations there were total violation. what we actually stood for since nine eleven the people who are out to expose government incompetence ineptitude and things that embarrass a government get hammered the pressure to run scared of being called. traitors and should consult a week. says that they're not doing their duty of upholding the constitution i would say we need more snowden's more chilled semen. or more words like iraq just like edward

six plaintiffs in the case are one winning journalist chris hedges and on paper whistleblower daniel ellsberg and author dr noam chomsky their failure to challenge a method of detention before the highest court in the land underscores yet again another massive erosion of the constitutional rights of all americans so joining me now to discuss everything and da reagan is that producer manual rob lowe many we've been kind of my big ring we've been covering this case since the beginning we went to new york to sit in on that. and hearings on the how did we get to this point and why on earth would the supreme court rejected appeal to hear one of most important cases regarding civil liberties right and i think to the question of why the the because the supreme court doesn't have to give an answer as to why they're not going to hear they're not taking the case or not taking the case but the timeline of events between when this when the n.d.a. two thousand and twelve was signed into law on december thirty first two thousand and eleven till now is all very important and a very specific event that happe