Glenn Greenwald with David Barsamian, March 08, 2011

*Glenn's Lannan talk can be viewed or read here.

DB: Well, we’ve got lots of questions and about 30 minutes to get through some of them. Let me just start, if I can have that privilege. You mentioned Eisenhower’s farewell address. It was just marked in a few columns here and there, the fiftieth anniversary. You know, after he made that warning, in the very next paragraph, the warning about the military industrial complex, he did say that there was one thing that could put a break on it, and that was an informed and knowledgeable citizenry, which goes to the whole question of the role of the media in being a conduit for information or misinformation or propaganda.

GG: Right. Well, one of the interesting things that before I began writing about politics, and what that has enabled me to do is to focus full time on it in a way that you can’t do when you actually have a job. Before I began writing about politics, I thought that I was a fairly well informed consumer of news. I did things like dutifully read the NYT, and I would read magazines and watch high end news programs and the like. I assumed there were things I was getting that were not entirely accurate. I was a litigator, so I generally assumed that people were lying constantly. It’s just a risk of the profession. But, I thought that by and large I was getting the basic story right about what the US is and what it does in the world. One of the things that was really so eye-opening for me was, and again, there is a little bit of a naiveté to it, is that once I was actually able to start focusing on these things full time, and reading original documents for myself, and not having to rely on the mediation of the media, being able to pick and chose what I would focus on, rather than having editors decide for me what I needed to know about it and what I didn’t, was that essentially all the, not just individual facts but the broad narrative that I was getting was really radically flawed. I basically erased the part of my brain that had existed, that thought that it had stored accurate political information, and kind of rebuilt it from scratch. One of the things that today is still so remarkable to me, is that there are enormously consequential events that exist, for example, in the Muslim world, that are constantly displayed on their news programs and in their newspapers, that are literally unmentioned in the American media. That has created this extraordinarily huge gap in the perception in that part of the world, and this part of the world. We like to assume that the reason why that gap exists is that they’re these primitive fundamentalists who are propagandized and who aren’t told the truth by their media and by their government. There is some extent to which that is true, but there’s huge extent to which the opposite is true, which is the reason this perception gap exists is because we are propagandized. There’s so much that happens that we don’t know about that they do. They know every time an American airplane slaughters innocent civilians and we virtually never hear about it. They know that the American government spent years imprisoning Al Jazeera journalists without any due process of any kind in order to interrogate them about Al Jazeera, and they we attacked Al Jazeera with fighter jets. I guarantee you the percentage of Americans who knows any of that is infinitesimal. And, you go down the list, and this is the definition of propaganda, when the information that we get is designed to shape our perceptions favorably to the government and there’s so much of it that we have.

DB: A number of questions focus on WL and Bradley Manning. How can people support, financially or otherwise, WL and do so anonymously…that seems to be a concern, and Bradley Manning. I know there’s a demonstration coming up in Virginia on March 20.

GG: Right. As far as financial support to WL is concerned, there are difficult ways to do that, because all American financial services corporations like Bank of America and PayPal have terminated their services and VISA and MasterCard won’t process payments. It is difficult. There are ways to do it through bank wires. I don’t know if there’s a way to do it anonymously, and again, the fact that that concern has been raised reflects the climate that I talked about earlier. But if you go the WL website which isn’t easy to find these days, thanks to the cyber attacks and Amazon, but it’s at wikileaks dot ch. There are instructions for how one can donate to WL. Bradley Manning is a much more conservative donation to make, in the sense of nobody could ever suggest that there would ever be anything illegal about it. He has a defense fund, which fortunately has raised I think ninety five or ninety six percent of the money that they think they will need for his defense. There are still other things he needs in terms of publicity to help get his story out in the media. There may be other expenses associated with protests and legal actions brought over the treatment to which he’s being subjected. So, you could just google Bradley Manning Defense Fund and you’ll find it there, a very trust worthy organization, and you can donate as well. But, I think the more important thing that one can do for WL and Bradley Manning, rather than giving money, is what we’re doing now, which is, you know, a lot of times when I write things or speak at places, there are always question, well, what can be done about this, as though what we’re doing is nothing. One of the most important things you can do is get together with fellow citizens and inform them and talk with them and buildup the dissatisfaction and the anger over it, so that there is real dissatisfaction in the citizenry for these things. There is a protest on March 20th at the Quantico Base in Virginia, the brig where he’s being held, and whoever has the resources to go there, I think would be encouraged to do so. And there are similar protests being organized all around the country, at Marine or Army facilities or at members of congress over the torture to which this American citizen is being subjected on American soil. I think this would be immensely helpful in bringing more attention to his plight.

DB: Again, this is an amalgam of several questions. You talked in your presentation about this enormous consortium of government and corporate power and that faction is so powerful. In some ways, that’s very disenabling in terms of creating this tremendous force. How can people confront it?

GG: One of the interesting dynamics that I confronted from the very beginning of my working on political issues, writing about political issues full time, was this idea that if you, and it’s almost a paradox, but it’s almost like the more you document just how heinous things are, the more hopelessness you risk breeding, because, the more you demonstrate how these powerful factions are seemingly invulnerable, and how immunized they are from any forms of accountability, the more daunting the task seems to confront them. And, what I would always say, whenever people would say this seems so hopeless and everything seems pessimistic in terms of the prospects for change, I would say that any systems that have been constructed by human beings can be destroyed and replaced, or even modified by other human beings. History proves that. One of the things that I think is so vital about what’s happening in the Middle East is, I mean, “hopelessness”-if you were to look up that term in the dictionary, you would find essentially the pictures of the people who were living under the repression in those countries. I mean, these are dictatorships that have been in place for decades. The people are disempowered, not just financially and in terms of weaponry, but in terms of being kept illiterate and poor education. I mean, that’s not true in all the countries, but in many. When you have a country that is under that level of repression for so long, it breaks their spirit, it breaks their psychological belief that they can actually change things. And, so the fact that in that part of the world the most unlikely part of that world, people, ordinary people are rising up together and essentially putting great fear in these tyrants and in these monarchs who are propped up by the US and have been for decades; and are winning should prevent any person in this country with the resources and the relative domestic liberties that we have, from ever succumbing to resignation. That ought to be the model that prevents that from happening.

DB: It took the Egyptian people eighteen days to overthrow a 30 year autocracy.

GG: Yeah, exactly.

DB: [9:40] Quite an amazing accomplishment. What do you think is behind Obama’s decision to restore military tribunals in Guantanamo?

GG: Well. This is part and parcel of the entire preservation by Obama of the Bush-Cheney architecture for the war on terror generally and the detention regime specifically. There’s this idea, [I actually wrote about this today even though I was traveling, but it was irritating me so much that I found the time because I thought I was going to go crazy if I didn’t], that Obama wanted to close Guantanamo so very, very badly, but unfortunately he was thwarted by the Congress, because they denied him the funds to do so, and then enacted legislation barring the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the US, and that he is therefore forced, against all of his wishes, to preserve what’s taking place in Guantanamo. And this is actually a complete fiction, because if you go and look at what Obama actually said he wanted to do, and intended to do, prior to the time that Congress did anything, he, it is true, wanted to “close” Guantanamo, in the sense of taking all of the parts that compose it and moving it a couple thousand miles north to a maximum security facility, a super-max in Thompson, Illinois, where the detainees there would continue to be detained without any due process of any kind, without being charged, without any recourse beyond the say-so of the president and to continue their system of military tribunals as well that caused so much controversy during the Bush administration. I was pretty involved in the debates over the Guantanamo disputes, and my recollection is pretty clear that what made people so angry about Guantanamo, was not that it was located in Cuba rather than Illinois, so that if you move it to Illinois it’s all problem solved. I think what made people angry, was that it was sort of un-American and unjust to put people in prison for decades or for life without so much as charging them with a crime; or inventing new tribunals, [instead of allowing them access to our regular courts] that were essentially rigged in advance to ensure their conviction. So, this idea that Obama wanted to close Guantanamo, and isn’t that great and too bad he got thwarted is true only in the narrowest sense. The reality is he all along wanted to simply transfer this system that was Guantanamo to a different location on the premise that if he did that, I guess, it would fool enough people in the Muslim world, and in the US, to make everyone think that the nightmare of the Bush regime was over. That would never have fooled anyone, other than a few partisans in the US and probably the entire cast of cable news, but other than that, it would not have fooled anyone. It is true that Congress forced this system to continue in Cuba, but what Obama wanted to do wasn’t all that different.

DB: Talk about the social media and its impact; Face Book, Twitter, You Tube. I was just in Kashmir ten days ago. The kids there who are in revolt against the Indian occupation are taking their cell phones and photographing and then uploading those onto You Tube and they’re spreading all over.

GG: Right. To me, this new social media really is just he inevitable and logical progression from what I think the internet did several years ago in terms of making political discourse much more democratized. It really was the case not all that long ago, even just going back to 2002, 2003, when the only people who could really be heard loudly in political discourse in the US were people who either were entrenched political officials who had access to large media outlets or employees of large multinational conglomerates who essentially comprise all the people who call themselves journalists in the US. Every person you saw on television who delivered the news, who talked about the news, journalists who wrote for newspapers, the largest newspapers are all employees of huge corporate institutions. That meant that there was a very homogenized voice, set of voices that were shaping political discourse, which is why, if you go back and read political debates in 2002 and 2003 as I sometimes still do, you’ll be shocked. No matter how much you think you remember just how insane it all was, if you go back and read what happened on PBS or CNN as they talk about Saddam Hussein and all his scary weapons; or if you talk about, people who talk about in newspapers George Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld being brave and even sexually arousing warriors and how manly they were, all very common themes. You don’t have to look very hard for that, it’s all there, you will be shocked by just how rotted and degraded our political discourse was, even that recently. What the internet really did was it allowed people, such as myself and a lot of other people, to no longer have to go to large institutions and corporations in order to have the means for building a readership and building an audience and using the technology that can disseminate ideas to large numbers of people. It really diversified and democratized political discourse and brought in a lot of new voices and therefore a lot of new ideas, which is why I do think things have improved slightly in terms of how political debates are conducted. What Face Book and Twitter and what all that social media has done, is, it has brought it to parts of the world where it didn’t exist before and it has just democratized it further. So now, all you need is access to You Tube and a cell phone, and you can make major international news without the mediation of any corporate editors, in a way that was completely unthinkable even seven or eight years ago. It especially is effective at organizing like-minded people in a very quick way to create their own alliance of power that could compete with far more entrenched power. Again, I think we’re at the very insipient stages of this process, and that is why internet freedom is such a vital war to be attentive to, because people in power know how threatening it is, and that’s why they’re constantly devising ways to control it, to undermine it, to dilute it and to subvert it.

DB: It’s been said more than once that corporate media is a WMD-a weapon of mass distraction, and needs to be regulated to some extent. Now, talking about, you just mentioned political discourse. The question here is about the affect of the Citizen’s United [CU] case and what can be done to reverse the effect of corporate money in elections, and how that relates to the regime of secrecy.

GG: [16:41] Right. One of the things I think that CU did was…I personally don’t think that CU changed very much, because, CU dealt with a very narrow form of corporate spending, which is the ability of corporations to spend money specifically in a sixty day period prior to an election in order to elect a candidate. Prior to CU, corporations were completely free to spend as much money as they wanted to do things like run what were called “issue ads”, so they could run an issue the day before the election and spend as much money as they wanted saying Congressman Smith has supported this horrendous piece of legislation that’s the equivalent of the worst tyranny. Call Congressman Smith and tell him to stop it, which was just a poorly disguised way of saying vote against Congressman Smith. All CU did was allow corporations now to make their spending more overt so that they could now say vote against Congressman Smith, vote for this person. Prior to CU, in my opinion, corporate influence, the influence of corporate money in American politics was already far and away the most serious problem that we face. I think…because what it encompasses is everything I talked about earlier. It’s the ability of the nation’s wealthiest factions to control our political process in a way that was never intended. Until that problem is redressed, there isn’t very much within the democratic process, voting, referenda, petitions, calling members of congress, none of that really matters because the people to whom they’re answering are the people who are the oligarchs, the people who control all the financial wealth because they own the political process. I personally am more comfortable, a lot more comfortable, with leveling that playing field with a very robust form of public financing so that if corporation give ten million dollars to a particular candidate, there’s a public financing scheme that will give ten million dollars to their opponent, and will level out the playing field so that candidates don’t have to be beholden to moneyed interests. I think that that’s the only way to subvert that, combined with genuine full disclosure so that people like the Koch brothers and others can’t operate in the dark and act covertly. But, I think public financing can truly level the playing field in a way that will alleviate the need of politicians to serve who their masters are now which is to the people who pay into and buy the political system.

DB: You excoriate in very clear terms the Democrats and the Republicans. Is it time for a second political party?

GG: A third?...[laughs] Right. That took me a second. It’s interesting, but some of the critics of the American political process whom I respect most will say, no matter how critical they are of the Democratic Party, and how insistent they are that there’s very little difference between them, that it’s still important at the end of the day to vote against Republicans and vote for Democrats. That’s something that Noam Chomsky says all the time. I’m not for the moment saying that’s my opinion, so if you want to applaud him go ahead. That has always been persuasive to me, or at least it was for a long time, that…Chomsky’s argument is, and Howard Zinn’s would say the same thing, and others, too, that even though the differences are so minute, relatively speaking from a bird’s eye view, and even though the kinds of issues we talked about tonight, there are no differences, that when you’re talking about a structure as enormous as the US government, that even minor differences between the two parties in terms of how they allocate resources, which programs they fund, and which ones they defund, can have a very substantial impact on the lives of millions of people and it’s irresponsible to say that because the differences aren’t great enough, that I’m going to abstain, or that I’m going to become indifferent about which political party wins. Because it actually does matter in the lives of a lot of people whether Social Security is cut a lot or kind of a lot, and things like that. That’s that argument, and it’s an argument which I have found somewhat persuasive. Lately, I’ve become a lot more ambivalent about that argument. The reason is that, though it is true that if you look at short term political cycles there are some differences between Democrats and Republicans. It may very well be the case that had John McCain and Sara Palin won, that we would have instead of just a few wars we would have one more with Iran, which would be an extremely bad thing for countless millions of people. At the same time, it’s also the case that if you look a little bit broader at the political conflicts, at some point you have to say, I’m willing to sacrifice some short term political gain in order to find a way to make more meaningful improvements over the long term. Otherwise, we’re going to be having the same conversation in 2016 and 2020 and 2024 and our children will and our grandchildren will, and everyone’s going to be lamenting how terrible it is that we don’t have any choices and yet nothing will change because at the end of the day all the loyalists lineup behind the two parties on the ground that the other one is just slightly worse. Until that mind set is broken, and I don’t know what the answer is for breaking it because I acknowledge that there is real danger from abstaining from the political process, or in becoming indifferent about which of the two political parties wins, but what I know is as long as we continue doing what we’re doing the same dynamic will persist. That’s just logical. So, at some point, I think you need to start to say that the differences are minor enough that I’m willing to let this slightly worse party win a couple more seats than they otherwise might, maybe even win an election because I want the Democratic Party to know that if they continue doing what they’re doing on the grounds that they can just take for granted all of our support, at some point that assurance in their mind needs to be broken so that they become more attentive to the people they claim to represent.

DB: Two questions from a student from St. John’s College. First off: are there some things that should be secret? And the second one is: Where have reporters like Ed Murrow, Woodward and Bernstein gone?

GG: [23:30] I would certainly say clearly the answer to the question should some things be secret is “Yes”. If the government is investigating as part of a grand jury a potential criminal target, you don’t want that fact to be known; or what they discover to be known, because it may be that the person is innocent and their name will be besmirched by disclosure of grand jury secrecy. There are certain things that you probably wouldn’t want publicized on the front page of the NYT, like the location of nuclear war heads and the combination to launch them would probably be a thing that you’d want to keep secret, in my opinion. I think even the hardest core transparency advocates acknowledge that there is some degree of legitimate secrecy. The problem is that secrecy ought to be the very rare exception, and it’s become the rule. One of the things that’s so amazing to me, is that, over the last year WL has released close to a million pages of documents. While I said before, and it’s true, that this claim that there’s nothing new there is absurd, there are tons of things that are new, the vast majority of what has been released is actually quite banal. They are just very routine documents. To me, that in itself is a scandal, because what it shows is that the government reflexively stamps secret or classified on basically every single thing that it does. So, the more people keep saying that these WL documents show nothing, that they don’t reveal anything, the more to me that is an indictment of just the obsession with secrecy that the US government and the US military has. The presumption has been reversed. Everything is presumptively secret when it’s supposed to be presumptively disclosed. And that’s why, to me, when people raise concerns well isn’t WL going a little too far in disclosing some things that should be secret. We’re so far over towards the pole of excessive secrecy that I can’t even envision the day when I’m going to start worrying about excessive disclosure. I’d like to be in that position, but we’re so far from that day. So, yes, some things should be kept secret, but that is so far away from the problem that we have, that things that should be kept secret aren’t being kept secret, when everything is being kept secret, and that’s a real threat to democracy.

As far as where Bob Woodward went, he’s still around. Unfortunately, I don’t mean I wish that he weren’t alive. I mean that he’s still practicing journalism in a very harmful way, and I think that that transformation from the Bob Woodward of forty years ago when he worked very hard to expose serious wrong doing at the highest levels of government, [it’s not quite as pure and romanticized as that, but there’s been enough pessimism tonight, so we’ll let Bob Woodward have his legacy], but the transformation of Bob Woodward from whistle blowing adversarial journalist into what he’s become, which is basically royal court spokesman, very highly paid, royal court spokesperson, that’s how I see him, I think is illustrative of the media generally. It used to be that journalism was a marginalized, outsider profession. The people who practiced it were fairly poor, they weren’t very rewarded economically. They’ve now been incorporated almost fully into the circles of political power. They’re far closer to, they identify far more with culturally and socio economically with the people whom they’re covering, and the people whom they’re suppose to be adversarially watch dogging, than the people on whose behalf they’re doing that. It’s become completely morphed. That, I think, has really corrupted what they do. The great journalists David Halberstam said the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you probably are. I think that kind of underscores this fact that journalists have always supposed to have been, not hobnobbing with political power and getting access to it and being friendly with it, but being truly belligerent towards it, being excluded from it and being on the outside. The minute Bob Woodward started being aloud out into the pearly halls of power in Washington, and having his access dependent on going and writing what served their interest, is the minute that he became corrupted as a journalist, no longer was a journalist. I think that’s what’s happened with journalism generally…establishment journalism generally, it’s become corporatized, and it’s become integrated into the system of political power and therefore can’t possibly be adversarial to it any longer.

DB: If I may say to that student, forget Woodward. Read Dahr Jamail. Read Jeremy Scahill. Nir Rosen.

GG: Izzy Stone

DB: IF Stone, of course, classic journalist. There are a lot of alternatives out there. I’m sure I left off some names. Excuse the grammar, but within a week this event will be podcastable and downloadable both the audio and the video. Just go to the Lannan Foundation website and you’ll find it there. We’re running out of time. Let me give you a couple of loaded questions, here. Any more bombshells from WL? They reportedly have some major information about what’s happening in the financial system.

GG: Well, there was a story for a while that they had some very explosive documents about a major bank which everyone assumed correctly was Bank of America [BoA]. And that actually lead to a recent scandal where the BoA hired a law firm and some internet security firms to start trying to coordinate a response to WL, and to attack it. I’m not sure how significant those BoA documents are really going to be. Obviously, there’s lots of corruption and wrong doing at the highest levels of every major American Bank. The BoA is America’s largest bank. So, it isn’t that the corruption doesn’t exist I just don’t know if these document are going to be able to fulfill the original promise. What I do know is that WL’s problem right now is that they’re so overloaded with disclosures of documents that seem at face value to be extremely significant, that one of the reasons why they actually do need financial support is because it’s very expensive for them to go through the process of verifying and authenticating those documents. They’re well aware that the Pentagon wants to feed false documents to them, that their credibility would be instantly destroyed if they ever released in this major fanfare of a way documents that turned out to be fabricated. So, when they do get documents, they go to extreme lengths to ensure that they are authentic. That’s why it takes some time. So they are sitting on some documents that I know for a fact, if they’re real, will make as much headlines, if not more than the previous disclosures. It’s just a matter of getting those documents verified.

DB: Glenn, I have to ask you this question. I have an unreleased WL document right here in my hand reporting that you will sign books in the lobby in a few moments. Can you confirm or deny that?

GG: It is true. It is a major coup of WL. They have authenticated that.

DB: You heard it right here. Thanks very much for coming. Have a wonderful evening.

GG: Thank you very much. [31:05]

You can view the interview and read the transcript of Glenn's talk at the Lannan Foundation here.

http://podcast.lannan.org/2011/03/13/glenn-greenwald-with-david-barsamian-conversation-8-march-2011-video/

With much thanks again to longime poster extraordinaire, harpie for the transcription!

Glenn Greenwald Speech at the Lannan Foundation

Thank you. Thanks very much and good evening to everybody, and thank you for coming and thank you very much for that warm reception as well. And thank you as well to the Lannan Foundation for inviting me to Santa Fe, which I’ve discovered over the last day and a half is a beautiful city. It’s my first time here. And I’m especially delighted to have been invited to kick off what certainly will be a very exciting and vibrant speaker series that the Lannan Foundation is sponsoring. So, I’m particularly pleased to be here for that, as well.

I’ve been speaking more at events like this and at various college campuses and the like over the last year. And one of the things that typically happens before the event, is that there’s a lot of time and mental energy spent on figuring out what the topic of the speech is going to be, and what the title is going to be. The speaker and the sponsors of the event go back and forth over what will be an interesting topic, what’s timely, what will be interesting to people. And then the title gets worked on and changed and edited. I have several speeches planned over the course of the next month, and there are all different topics and titles that were all worked out as part of this arduous process. What I found is that, as much time and energy that’s spent on that process, it actually ends up being completely irrelevant, because I find that no matter what the topic is, I keep speaking about the same set of issues, no matter what the title is.

The reason why that happens is not because I have some monomaniacal obsession with a handful of issues I can’t pull myself away from no matter what the topic is. That may be true, but that’s not actually the reason. The reason is because political controversies and political issues never take place in isolation. They’re always part of some broader framework, that drives political outcomes, and that determines how political power is exercised. And so it doesn’t really matter which specific topic, or which specific controversy of the day you want to discuss, the reality is, you can’t really meaningfully discuss any of them without examining all the forces that shape political culture, and that shape how political outcomes are determined. So, in order to talk about any issue, you end up speaking about these same, broad themes, that are shaping, and I think plaguing, the political discourse in the United States.

This is something that I first realized when I started writing about politics in late 2005. One of the very first topics on which I focused was the scandal about the Bush administrations eves dropping on American citizens without the warrants required by law. This was first exposed by the NYT in December of 2005, so it happened around six weeks after I began writing about politics. I had this, back then, very naïve idea that this was going to be very straight forward and simple political controversy. The reason I thought that in my naiveté, was because what the Bush administration got caught doing [eaves dropping on Americans without warrants from the FISA court] is as clear as could possibly be a felony under American law. You can actually look at the criminal law that existed since 1978, when FISA was enacted. It says that doing exactly what the Bush administration got caught doing, is a felony in the US, just like robbing a bank, or extortion or murder, and that it’s punishable by a prison term of five years or a ten thousand dollar fine for each offense. The report that the NYT published was that there were at least hundreds and probably thousands of instances where American citizens were eavesdropped on illegally and in violation of the law. So, I thought that this was going to be a fairly straight forward controversy, because I had this idea that if you get caught committing a felony, and the NYT writes and reports on that and everybody’s talking about that, that that’s actually going to be a really bad thing for the person who got caught doing that. I know it was really naïve. I’m actually embarrassed to admit that I thought that, but that really is was I thought at the time. I also thought that basically everybody would be in agreement that that was a really bad thing to do….that thing that the law said for thirty years was a felony and punishable by a prison term and a large fine. And, as it turned out, [and I realized this fairly quickly] none of that actually happened. It wasn’t a really bad thing for the people who got caught committing that felony.

And, not only did everyone not agree that that was a bad thing, very few people actually agreed that that was a very bad thing. So, what I thought I was going to be able to do was to take this issue and write very legalistically about it, and demonstrate that what the Bush administration had done was a crime, that it was a felony under the statute and that the legal defenses for it that they had raised were frivolous and baseless and that would be the end of the story. Crime committed, investigation commenced, punishment ensues. So what immediately happened, when I realized that none of that was really going on, of course then the question became why. Why was my expectation about what would happen so radically different than what in fact happened?

So, then I needed to delve into that dynamic, that I began by referencing that determines political outcomes. I had to examine the fact that we have a political faction inside the US [the American Right] that is drowning in concepts of nationalism, and exceptionalism, in tribalism that leads them to believe that whatever they and there leaders do is justifiable inherently because they do it, and in a complete lack of principle…this is the same faction that impeached a democratically elected President not more than 10 years earlier on the ground that the rule of law is paramount and we can’t allow our presidents to break the law. And, yet, here they were defending it.

And then I watched Democratic politicians, one after the next, go on talk shows to talk about this scandal, and they were all petrified of saying what the reality was, which was that what the Bush Administration got caught doing was a crime and it was illegal. They were all afraid to say that. What they were really eager for was for the scandal to go away, for them not to have to talk about it any longer. And so that made me write about the craveness of the Democratic Party, and the extent to which they are replicas of Republicans when it comes to national security issues, and the complete bipartisan consensus, where all of these kinds of issues are concerned, especially in the post 9-11 world.

And then I started realizing that there were journalists who were shaping the political discourse who were not only saying that they were fine with the fact that the Bush Administration had broken the law, but were attacking the very few Democrats who actually stood up and said “I think it’s problematic when the President does things that the Congress says is a criminal offence.” The journalist class, almost unanimously, was saying that the Democrats ought to avoid this for political reasons, and that on substantive grounds, Bush did the right thing because he had to protect us. Then I had to start writing about the media’s allegiance to political power and their belief in the omnipotence of the national security state, and its ability to act without restraints.

And then it turned out that it wasn’t just the government who was eavesdropping, but they were doing so in collaboration with the largest telecoms, the entire telecom industry, in essence, which was turning over all the phone records and e-mails of their customers secretly to the government, even though laws were in place specifically prohibiting private telecoms from handing over any information to the government without warrants because in the past, when the Church committee discovered the decades of abuses they found that ATT had been turning over records to the government, that Western Union was turning over all telegraphs. And so, Congress said not only the government is barred from eves dropping on Americans without warrants, but private telecoms-it shall be against the law for them to turn over data without warrants as well. Of course, they did exactly that. That led to my having to write about the consortium between government and corporate power and how the surveillance state and the national security state have essentially become merged; and that the real power lies with the private sector because so many of these government functions have been nationalized.

Then, of course, the entire quote-unquote scandal ended by all of the perpetrators being completely protected. The Bush Administration was given an immunity shield by the Obama Administration from any investigations to determine whether crimes were committed. And the private Telecom industry was given retroactive immunity by the Democratic led Congress in 2008 supported by Barak Obama.

In fact, the only person to suffer any legal repercussions from that NSA scandal was someone named Thomas Tam, who was the mid-level Justice Department whistle blower who found out that this was taking place and was horrified by it and called Eric Lichtblau at the NYT and exposed that it had happened. The person who was the only one to suffer repercussions was the person who exposed the criminality. The criminals were fully immunized.

So that led to my having to write about how the rule of law had been subverted, all the things David was just reading about. And, so, I realized that what I thought the scandal was about, what I thought the issue was about,…you know, nice abstract clinical little discussions about whether the law had been violated, and whether Article II theories were really viable, were actually relatively irrelevant. You could have that discussion, but it didn’t make much of a difference. What made the real difference were these broader themes.

[20:07] So, although the topic tonight is ostensibly Wikileaks and the controversies surrounding Wikileaks, if you look at what has happened in the Wikileaks scandal, it involves everyone of the ingredients that I just described. That’s why I can give a speech on the erosion of civil liberties in the US [which I’m going to do in a few days]…tonight I’m talking about Wikileaks, but what I’m always going to end up talking about are the fundamentals of how political power in the US is exercised and the way in which just outcomes are subverted because of these dynamic

One of the reasons why I find WL to be such a fascinating and critical topic is because I think it sheds unprecedented light on how these processes work and how they have come to develop and evolve in the US. I also think that there’s so much at stake in the war that has arisen over Wikileaks and internet freedom, and the ability to breach the secrecy regime behind which the government operates. For that reason, too, it’s such a critical topic.

There are a lot of different ways to talk about Wikileaks, and Wikileaks is a complex topic. But, one of the things I want to do is just to sort of walk through, a little bit, the chronology of my involvement in WL and to talk about some of the realizations that I’ve had that may have been somewhat known to me, but have really been cast into a very bright light as a result of what’s happened in the controversy surrounding WL.

[21:55] The first time that I ever wrote about WL, or ever really thought about WL was in January of 2010, a little bit more than a year ago, now. And this is a time when almost nobody had heard of WL, before they disclosed the first news-making leak, which was the video of the Apache helicopter shooting unarmed citizens and journalists in Baghdad. But, what had prompted me to pay attention to it and to write about it was that the Pentagon had prepared a report in 2008, a classified report, about WL that ironically though unsurprisingly was leaked to WL, which WL then published. What this report said, it talked about how the Pentagon considered WL to be an enemy of the state; a grave threat to US national security. It discussed a variety of ways to destroy WL: by fabricating documents to submit to them, in the hopes that they would publish forged documents, which would then destroy there credibility, like what happened with Dan Rather and CBS news and the Bush AWOL story; it talked about breaching the confidentiality between them and their sources so that their sources would get exposed and people would no longer feel confident in leaking to them. I didn’t have a really good sense for what WL had been doing, or what it was, but I figured that if there’s any grouping targeted that way by the Pentagon, that’s a group that merits a lot more examination and probably some admiration.

So I started looking a lot into WL and what they were doing, and at the time, although they hadn’t made much news in the US, they had actually exposed a great deal of wrong doing around the world. They had disclosed documents showing the involvement of government leaders in death squads in Kenya; they had shown the involvement of the Icelandic government in the financial collapse that destroyed that country’s financial security; there was an internet bill being discussed in Australia to shut down websites that were supposedly promoting child pornography, yet secretly on the list of targeted websites were a bunch of political site that had been critical of the Australian government; they had exposed corporate toxic waste dumping in West Africa; the involvement, or the negligence of local officials in Berlin with regard to a trampling at a night club that killed 23 people. So they had been quite active in a whole variety of different ways in exposing wrongdoing.

The one document they had exposed involving the US was a manual at Guantanamo for how prisoners ought to be treated. This manual was nothing very enlightening. We already knew that severe systematic abuse and torture were taking place at that site. But, the mere fact that WL had shown that they were able to start shedding light on some of the world’s most powerful factions, and exposing serious corruption, and had touched a little bit on America’s detention regime, with this one document, was enough for the Pentagon to take them very seriously. So, I wrote at that time about that report, and I had talked about all the potential for good that I thought WL could do. I had encouraged, in the context of my writing about it, [and I also interviewed Julian Assange at the time], I encouraged my readers to donate money to the group because there were indications that they were somewhat impeded in some of the disclosures they wanted to do because of the lack of resources. I said this would be a great organization to donate your money to. They need it. They look as though they could really achieve a lot of good. And after I wrote that, I received a lot of comments from people via e-mail, from people in person telling me at my attended events, from people in my comment section, American citizens who said the following: “I understand and agree with the idea that WL has a lot of potential to do good, but I’m actually afraid of donating money, because I’m afraid that I’m going to end up on some kind of a list somewhere; or that eventually I will be charged with aiding and abetting, or giving material support to a terrorist group”. This was not one or two people who tended toward the pole of paranoia saying these things. These were very rational people, and there were a lot of them. Some long term readers whom I knew to be quite sober in their thinking. The fear that they were expressing was somewhat pervasive. That, to me, was extraordinarily striking: that these were American citizens who were afraid to donate money to a group whose political aims they supported; who had never been charged with, let alone convicted of any crime who felt like they were going to end up on some kind of government list, or possibly be charged with aiding and abetting or giving material support to terrorism. Although I didn’t find those fears to be completely justifiable, in the sense that I thought those things would happen, I told people that I thought they ought to set those fears aside and donate money anyway, the fact that those fears existed; that that kind of climate of intimidation has been created in the US when it comes to the most basic rights of association and free speech, which are the rights which are implicated by donating money to a political organization that you support; that that climate of fear and intimidation had been so great that people were self censoring and relinquishing their own rights was something that perhaps in the abstract I had known about in the past, but really illustrated to me just how pervasive that had become.

Over the course of the next several months, because I was writing about WL more and more, especially as they began releasing the news making videos and documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and I began engaging in debates on behalf of WL and arguing with those who were claiming they were a force for evil and should be punished and prosecuted, I got to know the people who were involved in WL, either currently or in the past. Especially among the people who had once worked with WL, but then stopped, there was a common theme that they all sounded when you spoke to them about why they stopped working with WL, including some who had been very high up in the organization hierarchy and who were well resourced, and people who are citizens of European countries. What they said, almost to a person about why they stopped being involved in WL, and what a lot of people who still work with WL will tell you about why they are contemplating no longer working with WL is they will say: “I am extremely supportive of the organization’s aims and mission, I am proud to have been a part of the things they have done thus far, but I have a paralyzing fear that one day, my government is going to knock on my door and not charge me with a crime [that I can confront and am willing to deal with], but they’re going to knock on my door and tell me they are extraditing me to the US”.

In other words, the great fear of almost every person now or previously involved in WL is that they’re going to end up in the custody of the American Justice system, because of the black hole of due-process-free punishment that they’ve seen created and that is sustained for foreign nationals accused of crimes against US National security, because of the way in which people are disappeared without recourse to courts or any political protest.

It’s amazing that we have spent decades, probably since the end of WWII, lavishing praise on ourselves as the model of justice for the entire world, the leaders of the free world, lecturing everybody else about what their system of justice ought to be, and yet the fear that so many people around the world have, is that they will end up in the grip of American justice. That to me was extraordinarily telling, as well.

[30:05] Then, over the course of the next couple of months, when the controversy over WL was really escalated by the release of the diplomatic cables, I began doing a lot of public media debates over whether WL was a force for good or a force for evil, or whatever media morality narrative was, and how that was framed. I appeared on countless shows and television networks. The reason I was so ubiquitous doing that isn’t because CNN and MSNBC producers suddenly decided that they really liked me. It was because there were so few people to chose from who were actually defending WL, because the unanimity in the media was essentially that they were demonic and ought to be punished. So, it in order to have a debate where one person was arguing on behalf of WL and one was arguing against it, [it was very easy to find someone who was against it. You could more or less pick a journalist or a political figure out of a hat and that would be accomplished], what was harder was to find people who were willing to defend it. There were some but not many. So, I did a lot of these show, a lot more than I like to do, and is probably healthy for me to do. One of the things that I found, that was sort of striking was, I was usually on the show, the format of the show would be: there would be some journalist or a person who is on TV, an actor on TV playing the role of a journalist [laughter] along with some kind of government official, some like Washington functionary. So, I was on CNN and I debated Jessica Yellin who’s the CNN anchor, along with Fran Townsend, George Bush’s former national security advisor; and I did an NPR show once with Jamie Rubin, who was Madeline Albright’s deputy, and John Burns, the NYT reporter. That was usually the format. I did MSNBC with Jonathan Tapper who’s a journalist who writes for the Washington Post editorial page, and Susan Molinari, a former Republican congresswoman. Literally in every single case, the person who was designated as the journalist, and the person who was there to represent America’s political class thought and argued identically. I mean they were completely indistinguishable in terms of how they thought about WL. They were all in agreement that what WL was doing was awful; that our government had to put a stop to it. The only concern that they had was that the government wasn’t more careful in safeguarding secrets. So, you had people who were claiming to be journalists who were on television outraged that they were learning what the government was doing and furious at the government for not taking better steps to hide those things from them. And you had these debates that would take place and I would be listening to them and I literally couldn’t tell the journalist and the political official apart. And the reason that was so striking to me was because, if you think about it, if you put yourself in the mindset of what a journalist is supposed to be, not what an American journalist is, what an American journalist is supposed to be, what they’re supposed to be interested in, is exposing the secrets of the powerful, especially when the actions which are being undertaken in secret, are corrupt or illegal or deceitful.

What WL is doing is exactly that. It is shedding unprecedented light on what the world’s most powerful corporate and government factions are doing. Any journalist who ever had an inkling of the journalistic spirit, at one point in their life before that all got suffocated, you would think they would look at what WL was doing and reflexively celebrate it. Or at the very least, see the good in it. Yes, that what they are doing is what we are supposed to be doing, which is bringing to the citizens of the world the secrets that governments and corporations are trying to keep to conceal their improper actions. And yet there is almost none of that. I mean, it made sense to me that people in the political class were furious at WL because people in the political class inherently see their own prerogatives as being worth preserving, and they want to be able to operate in secret and think that they ought to be. But, the fact that journalists were not only on board with that, but were really leading the way was really remarkable to me as I did these interviews because there wasn’t even really a pretense of separation between how journalists think and how political functionaries think. I found that pretty striking as well.

[34:34] A few other aspects to the WL controversy that I think are commonalities in how our political discourse functions: One of the things you had was almost a full and complete bipartisan consensus that WL was satanic. I don’t think there has been a single democratic of republican politician of any national notoriety [other than I think Ron Paul and a couple of very liberal members of the house] who were willing to say that maybe WL isn’t all evil in a very cautious way. Other than that, you basically had a complete consensus as always happens when it comes to national security controversies. Almost nobody was willing to defend WL.

Then what you had was a faction on the American right, and some democrats as well, who very casually, almost like you would advocate a change in the capital gains tax, or some added safeguards for environmental protection, would go on television and start calling for Julian Assange’s death: like I think we need to send drone attacks, I think we need to treat him the way that Al Qaeda is treated. And maybe I was being a little unfair to Democrats and the debated between Republicans and Democrats were having at this time was should we kill Julian Assange or just throw him in prison for the rest of his life, even though he hasn’t actually committed any discernable crime? But the ease and the casualness with which our political culture entails calls for people’s death, you know we ought to kill this person even without any due process we ought to use drones, we ought to treat him the way we treat Al Qaeda, and the like I think is also reflective of how our political culture functions.

Couple other things that happened that I think are quite common which WL sheds light on: One of the things that started happening was that you have members of congress of both parties writing laws, now to vest the government with greater power to prosecute people for espionage, and for other serious felony offenses for leaking classified information. So this is very typical when a new demon arises and here we have Julian Assange and WL the villain of the month, immediately the government starts thinking about how they can opportunistically manipulate the hatred, the two minute hate sessions that arise out of this new villain to develop and seize more power for itself. And you very much see that.

And the last point that happens that is, I think, quite significant, is, and this is what David was talking about in his introduction, was the complete manipulation of law to advance the interest of the powerful. One of the things that I found to be striking about what’s happened with WL is, there’s this group, Anonymous is what they call themselves, and they’re essentially a group of mostly adolescent hackers who have quite advanced computer skills for doing things like shutting down websites or slowing them down. What they decided they were going to do was they were going to take a position in defense of WL. They said that they were going to target for cyber attacks and other kinds of cyber warfare any companies that in response to the government’s pressure terminated their services with WL. There were a whole variety of companies that obediently complied with the government’s request to cut off all services of WL: Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, Amazon, all of these companies made it impossible for WL to stay on line or for them to conduct financial transactions to receive donations. Anonymous began to target these websites. And the attacks were fairly primitive. They slowed those sites down for a few hours. Not very much damage. And yet, the Justice Department treated them like this Pearl Harbor on the internet. Eric Holder said “We are going to devote unlimited resources to getting to the bottom of Anonymous and who they are”. Turned out to be a couple of 16 year olds in The Netherlands and Belgium doing the clichéd operating from their mother’s basement type thing, but the fact that they had targeted corporate power on behalf of WL, an enemy of the US government, meant that the full force of the law was unleashed in order to punish them.

But, a couple of weeks before those Anonymous attacks, there was a far more sophisticated, and a far more serious and dangerous cyber attack that was launched at WL, that basically resulted in their being removed from the entire network of websites for the US, the entire website that hosts all internet websites for the US could no longer sustain those attacks that were being launched in a way that would safeguard their other customers. So they removed WL from the internet. That was when they had to search around and ultimately find a different url. Now that attack was really worthy of serious investigation because the complexity of the attack was really unlike anything that had really been seen before in terms of being right out in the open.

And yet, so far, for some really strange reason, even thought that attack was every bit as illegal as the attacks that Anonymous had launched that merited such scrutiny and investigation from the Justice Department, Eric Holder, the Justice Department, the Obama Administration has never once vowed to get to the bottom of who might be responsible for the attacks that knocked WL off line, even thought they’re much more dangerous.

And so, what this really reflects is that the law becomes a weapon for the US government for corporate power to use, to punish those who stand up to it he way anonymous did in a very mild and modest way. And yet, at the same time, the law shields those who are in power or who are operating on behalf of those in power of to advance their interests as illustrated by the fact that whoever was responsible for the attack on WL, whether a government organization or a corporate entity, or some combination of both, broke serious laws, committed serious cyber felonies, and, yet, will never be investigated, let alone prosecuted by the Justice Department.

And it’s all of these ingredients that I’ve just described that WL revealed, and that has shaped the outcome and driven the WL controversy are the same things I would talk about no matter what political controversy you asked me to talk about, whether it be Civil Liberties erosions; or what’s happening in Wisconsin, or anything else. And that’s why I say that the title, the topic, the individual episode that you chose to focus on, is valuable only as a window into how our political culture, how political factions all function.

The last point I want to make is why I think that WL is such a vital topic, not just in terms of the light that it shines on our political process, but in terms of what’s at stake.

I actually do believe that the battle over WL will easily be one of the most politically consequential conflicts of our generation, if not THE most politically consequential. I think that we’re just at the very insipient stages of this conflict, and that how it plays out is still very much still to be determined. I think what’s at stake is whether or not the secrecy regime that is the linchpin for how the American government functions, will continue to be invulnerable and impenetrable or whether it will start to be meaningfully breached. And I also think that internet freedom, the ability to use the internet for what has always been its ultimate promise, which is to have citizens band together in a way that no longer needs large corporate and institutional resources, to subvert and undermine the most powerful factions to provide a counter weight to them, whether that internet freedom will be preserved.

And this is why I think that: we have in general, when you talk about politics and you look at political discussions, what typically is focused on are these internecine day-to-day conflicts that are partisan in nature. What are Republicans and Democrats bickering about? What reason today is the left and the right at one another’s throat? What is it that’s dividing the citizenry and making the citizenry divisive and unable to band together to defend their common interest? These are the kinds of controversies that fill cable news shows; that occupy pundits and political chatterers, and all of that.

By and large, all of that is completely inconsequential. In fact, I shouldn’t say that. It actually is consequential. It has a purpose. The purpose is to distract all of us from what really matters in terms of how the government functions. What matters in terms of how the government functions has very little to do with whether Democrats or Republicans win the last election, or the next election. And it has very little to do with who sits in the White House, what individual occupies the oval office. I don’t mean to suggest those things are irrelevant, they’re not, they matter in marginal and sometimes more ways.

But what they don’t have anything to do with is the permanent power faction that runs the US and runs the governments with which the US is allied, this consortium of government and corporate power that I talked about earlier. What’s really interesting is, it used to be case that if you stood up in front of an audience and said that what really is running the government of the US is not the political parties that win elections, but this secret consortium of government and corporate power, a lot of people would look at you like you were some sort of fringe paranoid maniac, it would be a self marginalizing act to talk about that. But I don’t actually think that’s the case very much longer, and that’s because a lot of mainstream sources have confronted those realities, because it’s impossible to turn away from them.

I mean you could of course go back to the famous 1956 farewell speech of Dwight Eisenhower, who is hardly a fringe figure. He was a four star, a five star general, and a two term elected Republican president and he warned about exactly that. He called it the military industrial complex, of course. But he described how the merger of government and corporate power in the national security state context was threatening to subvert democracy because it would become vastly more powerful and unaccountable than anything that was actually still responsive to democratic forces. And yet, it’s odd that something that someone like Dwight Eisenhower warned about became for a long time taboo to talk about. I think in the post 9/11 world, this merger has become so overt, so conspicuous, so pervasive that its impossible to hide it any longer.

So earlier this year, or the end of last year, the Washington Post had a three part series that got very little attention because it covered this topic too well. People just didn’t know quite how to process it, especially people who go on television and talk about the news of the day. It was called Top Secret America. It was written by Dana Priest, who’s one of the widely hailed and highly decorated establishment reporters, along with William Arkin. What it describes is exactly what I just described, which is a vast apparatus of corporate and government power that is so unaccountable and so secret and so sprawling and so powerful that not even the people ostensibly running it know what it is composed of or what it does or what it entails. This is the faction that is truly exerting power in the US when it comes to most of the significant policies.

So, people become confused, and frustrated and angry and confounded and disheartened when they elect a Democratic president like Barack Obama who ran on a platform of change and delivered so little of it; and who continues to extend and bolster the very policies against which he railed while he was running.

There are lots of reasons why that is, and part of it is because politicians are inherently unprincipled, and get into office and want to preserve their own power. They think that the power that other people exercise which was a threat, in their hands is not only something that could be trusted but could be used as a force for good. All of those reasons are true. But, what is really true is that this powerful faction that exists, this enormous consortium of government and corporate power is at least as powerful and probably much more so, than any single politician, even the “most powerful man on earth” or whatever we call the president these days. So, even if he wanted to change these things, and I think he doesn’t, even if he wanted to he probably couldn’t.

What this faction relies upon more than anything else to preserve their power and to carry out the actions they undertake, is this wall of secrecy, this regime of secrecy. It is that secrecy that enables them to operate in the dark and therefore operate without any constraints, moral, ethical, legal, or any other kind. This is not a new concept. If you look at what political theorists have always talked about for centuries, if you look at what the founders talked about, the gravest threat to democracy and to a healthy government is excessive secrecy, because people are human beings, and human nature is such that if you operate in the dark, you will start to abuse your power.

That’s why, central to the whole design of our country, was that there would be these institutions that would prevent that from happening. They would be adversarial to political power. You would have the Congress that would investigate and exert oversight. We would have the media, the glorious Fourth Estate that would serve as a bulwark against abuse. We would have the Courts that would ultimately hold people accountable under the constraints of law at least, if nothing else worked. And each of these institutions have utterly failed, especially, though not only, especially in the post 9-11 world to bring about any meaningful transparency to what the national security and the surveillance state is doing. They operate fully without accountability, without constraint and with total compunction to do what they want.

[49:22] So, WL, is one of the very, very, very few entities that has proven itself capable of breaching that wall of secrecy. That is why it is one of the very few entities that has finally put some degree of meaningful fear in the heart of this national security state. For that reason and that reason alone is all I need. That is why I think a defense of WL has become so vital and so crucial and such an obligation on the part of anybody who believes that this regime of secrecy is so harmful.

Now if you look at the instances of serious government abuse over the past decade, and even longer, what you’ll find is that the lynchpin, the enabler for all of them is secrecy. So, if you look at the Bush Administration’s creation of a worldwide torture regime, or its spying on American citizens without the warrants required by law, or Dick Cheney meeting with energy executives early on to formulate the nation’s energy policies to benefit only that group, or how the government excluded any dissenting intelligence in the lead up to the Iraq war to make the case as though it was somehow airtight, or even going back to Viet Nam, when the government knew the war they were waging was unwinable, even as they were assuring the American public they were making progress and then Daniel Ellsberg released the secret documents showing that. It’s always secrecy that enables this level of abuse. It’s the same thing in all of the animal kingdom. Cockroaches at night scamper around in the kitchen and the minute you turn on the light, they run and hide. That is what transparency and light does to people.

One of the things about it is you can have whistleblowers, and we have had whistleblowers without WL, but there are a couple of features about WL that make it so unique and such a threat. One of the unique features is that it provides full anonymity. It doesn’t even know the identity of the people who are leaking to it, unlike say, the NYT, which always knows the identity of their sources and thus could be compelled at some point to disclose it to the government. And they have been compelled to do so. WL does not know the identity of who it is who’s leaking to them, and unless somebody goes around and boasts that they are the leaker it’s virtually impossible for the government, no matter how much force they bring to bear, to discover the identity

More importantly, WL is a stateless organization. Unlike the NYT or the Washington Post or The Guardian or Der Spiegel, or El Pais or any of the other newspapers around the world, WL does not physically exist in any state, and therefore can’t be subject to the laws of that state. It can’t, therefore, be dragged into court and compelled to disclose information about their sources, even if they had it. But, what’s more important still about this statelessness is that unlike American newspapers, which will acknowledge as Bill Keller, the executive editor of the NYT recently did, in an article he wrote about WL, they will acknowledge that even though they try to be objective, their allegiance is a patriotic and nationalistic one. They are loyal to the US government, and their editorial judgments are shaped by what advances or undermines American interests. They therefore don’t disclose things many times on the ground that disclosure will harm American policy, even though that policy is improper. So, the NYT learned that the Bush Administration was spying without warrants and they sat on that story for a year because Bush told them to, until Bush was safely reelected. Or, the Washington Post learned that the CIA was maintaining a network of CIA black sites throughout Eastern Europe, a violation of every precept of international law on American treaties. Although they finally wrote about it, they concealed the specific nations where those black sites were located because the CIA told them that if they disclosed the nations it would prevent them from continuing to operate those prisons. So they withheld the information that enabled that illegal policy to continue.

WL doesn’t do that. They have no allegiance to the US government. Their allegiance is to transparency and disclosure. So, sources know that if they disclose something to the NYT, it’s very likely that the NYT will conceal it, or will edit snippets of it and release only those in order to protect the interests and policies of the US government. WL will not have that allegiance. They have a true journalistic purpose which is to bring transparency to the world.

And then, finally what you see is the reform potential with WL. The amount of information which has been released over the past year is extraordinary. And although journalists have talked about how there’s quote nothing new in these documents was the claim made for a while to dismiss its importance. On one hand WL is a great threat to national security and compromising all that was good in the world. On the other hand nothing they were disclosing was remotely new and it was all everything we already knew. That conflict never got reconciled. It didn’t need to.

But, the reality is that the documents WL has disclosed has not only made huge headlines in the US, but in almost every country around the world. What’s really interesting is that Bill Keller, the afore mention NYT executive editor, although a hardcore critic of WL, in that article said, that some of the documents released by WL, allegedly disclosed to WL by Bradley Manning, exposed just how corrupt and opulent the royal family in Tunisia was, and that that helped fuel and accelerate the uprising in Tunisia, which was of course the catalyst for the rest of the uprisings in the middle east. So, if you look at the chat logs that have been disclosed, where Bradley Manning supposedly confessed that he was the source of these documents, what he says about why he did that was that he believed that only WL would provide the level of disclosure needed to bring about the kind of transparency that would make people, not just in the US, but in the world, realize the level and magnitude of corruption of the people in power. And that this could not help but trigger very serious uprisings and reforms: exactly what is happening is exactly what he said he hoped to achieve through this leak. That’s why what David said in his introduction sounds like it may be satirical or hyperbole, but I think it’s really true. I’ve said the same thing, as well, that if Julian Assange or Bradley Manning were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it would certainly be a far more justifiable award than the one that was given in 2009 to the American president.

I have one more point that I just want to make, that I think underscores this whole controversy. And that is, as I said earlier, that I saw the WL controversy as a war over the regime of secrecy and whether it would be preserved or subverted and over internet freedom as well. The people who are most threatened by WL are well aware of the fact that you can not stop the technology that WL has developed. Even if you did send a drone to kill Julian Assange and everybody else associated with WL, the template already exists. It’s not all that difficult to replicate WL’s system for anonymity and for disclosure. In fact, there are other entities already popping up that will simply substitute for WL and replace what they’re doing. The Pentagon knows that. The National Security State knows that. They know that they can’t create secrecy practices that will protect them against these kinds of disclosures, as well. So, their strategy is to escalate the climate of intimidation and deterrence, so that would-be whistle blowers in the future think twice and a third time and a fourth time when they discover illegal and deceitful actions about exposing it to the world.

So you see, in response to WL, and a variety of other whistle blowers, the Obama administration waging what is clearly the most unprecedented aggressive war to prosecute whistle blowers, people who exposed waste and corruption and law breaking in the Bush era, have been prosecuted with extraordinary aggression by the Obama DoJ, even though Obama, when he ran for president, hailed whistle blowers as patriotic and courageous, and said that whistle blowing needs to be fostered and protected, he’s currently heading a war, the likes of which we have never seen, to put people who whistle blow, who expose the wrong doing of the powerful, into prison, and to expose who they are and detect them.

On top of that, you have a war being waged on WL. The Justice department is obsessed with the idea of prosecuting WL, even though they have done nothing that newspapers everyday also don’t do, which is expose government secrets that they receive from their source. And they’ve done things like subpoena the twitter accounts of anyone associated with WL including a sitting member of the Icelandic Parliament who was once associated with WL, causing a little mini diplomatic crises, at least as much of a crises as can be caused with Iceland.

You see as well what has happened to Bradley Manning, which David described and I’ve written endlessly about, and won’t repeat, but, what they want essentially to do, is to take that climate of fear that I began by talking about, that made so many people who read what I wrote petrified of donating money to WL, even though they have the absolute legal and constitutional right to do so. They want to take this climate of fear and drastically expand it. This is what the Bush torture and detention regime were about. Everybody knows that if you torture people you don’t get good information. It was never about that. Disappearing people and putting them into orange jumpsuits, and into legal black holes and water boarding them and freezing them and killing detainees was about signaling to the rest of world that you can not challenge or stand up to American power, because if you do, we will respond without constraints, and there is nothing anybody can or will do about it. It was about creating a climate of repression and fear to deter any would be dissenters or challengers to American power. And that is what this war on whistle blowing and this war on WL is about as well.

They don’t want, more than anything, for anybody to get the idea that they can start doing what WL is doing, to start exposing those in power who engage in wrong doing. That is their biggest fear, because they know that if that mechanism exists, they can no longer continue to do the things that they are doing. So, this war on WL, this war on whistle blowers, is about forever ending really the one avenue that we’ve had over the past decade for learning about what our government and their corporate partners do, which is the process of whistle blowing. If they succeed, that regime of secrecy will become much more intensified. That deterrent will endure for a long time. But if WL is successfully defended, if these efforts are warded off, then one of the most promising means of bringing accountability and transparency that we’ve seen in a very long time, will be preserved. And that’s why I talk about WL so much, why I write about it so much and why I think it’s so important.

So, thank you very much for listening. [1:01:45]

Please don't miss the follow-up discussion with Glenn and David Barsamian. It can be found here.

With much thanks to "harpie" for the transcript.