:00:18. > :00:24.say he is in no danger. Now on BBC When it comes to national security,
:00:24. > :00:31.does the need for secrecy override in the public's right to know? It
:00:31. > :00:34.is a hot debate in many democracies, none more so than in the US where
:00:34. > :00:44.prison Obama has gone after leakers and whistle-blowers with
:00:44. > :00:47.unprecedented ferocity. Thomas Drake was an intelligence official
:00:47. > :00:57.inside America's National Security Agency. He ended up prosecuted by
:00:57. > :01:21.
:01:21. > :01:27.the government he served. Did he Thomas Drake in Washington DC.
:01:27. > :01:32.Welcome to HARDtalk. Thanks a having me. I would like to take you
:01:32. > :01:36.back to the sum of 2001 when you signed up as a staff intelligence
:01:36. > :01:42.official inside the National Security Agency. At that point, you
:01:42. > :01:48.had to sign an oath of confidentiality. How seriously do
:01:48. > :01:55.you take that oath? I was not the - - it was not the first fund higher
:01:55. > :02:03.taken. It is a secrecy agreement. I had taken a number during my course
:02:03. > :02:07.of the government career and in the military. That secrecy agreement is
:02:07. > :02:12.you are obligated to protect classified information - what they
:02:12. > :02:18.call protected information. Did you see it in any way as optional that
:02:18. > :02:23.you were entitled to have an opinion about the validity of the
:02:23. > :02:28.secrets, the competences they were required to keep at the NSA? I did
:02:28. > :02:34.not at all. There are legitimate secrets that government is entitled
:02:34. > :02:39.to keep. However, they are not to use the very secrecy system as
:02:39. > :02:43.cover-up or as excuses to engage in conduct which violate the laws of
:02:43. > :02:50.the constitution. In terms of mine said, it is interesting you told me
:02:50. > :02:55.you work in different government agencies - you work in these the a
:02:55. > :03:01.and er the er US Air Force. In terms of the duties, the
:03:01. > :03:05.obligations and chain of command and the requirement for absolute
:03:05. > :03:11.loyalty, did you see it serving inside the NSA as in any way
:03:11. > :03:17.comparable to serving in the US military? I was a civilian. The
:03:17. > :03:23.rules were different. In the the army you follow a more restricted
:03:23. > :03:26.form of system of justice under the constitution. In the military, you
:03:26. > :03:34.are only obligated to follow lawful orders and have a duty to question
:03:34. > :03:38.orders if you believe they're not lawful. I am picking away at this
:03:38. > :03:41.idea of the mindset you signed up at the NSA. We will talk about the
:03:41. > :03:48.detail of what you did in a minute but you have raised many questions
:03:48. > :03:58.about what it means to retain confidences and sign-up to
:03:58. > :04:04.confidentiality within government. Lenny Brewer says that you do not
:04:04. > :04:12.get to disclose confidential information just because you want
:04:12. > :04:17.to. The point he makes is a good one, is it not? He makes a point
:04:17. > :04:22.but it is disingenuous and it is dissembling in the actual truth of
:04:22. > :04:27.what you sign up for. The one thing they do not sign up for is to use
:04:27. > :04:32.the system of classification, the secrecy system, as cover for
:04:32. > :04:37.conduct that violates the very form of government there you are
:04:37. > :04:42.obligated to take an oath to support and defend. The oath that I
:04:42. > :04:47.took, not the secrecy agreement, takes primacy over that. The oath
:04:47. > :04:52.to the constitution is to an idea not to a secrecy agreement, not to
:04:52. > :04:56.an agency, not to the President of the US and certainly not an oath to
:04:56. > :05:00.remain silence when the government is complicit in conduct that
:05:00. > :05:06.violates the very constitution they knew was sworn to uphold, support
:05:06. > :05:12.and defend. Everything you have said is very subjective. Every
:05:12. > :05:15.opinion and analysis that you off on the constitutionality or
:05:15. > :05:22.otherwise of operations you were required to engage in his deeply
:05:22. > :05:25.subjective? There is actually very specific stature and Executive
:05:25. > :05:32.Orders that govern the conduct of what is classified or not
:05:32. > :05:34.classified. How you use these systems or not. Getting to the
:05:34. > :05:41.specifics and remind people of exactly what happened in the
:05:41. > :05:48.sequence of events after 2001. You were very much involved in
:05:48. > :05:54.intelligence gathering after 9/11 in you became concerned very
:05:54. > :05:57.quickly that you felt the NSA was massively over reaching - using its
:05:57. > :06:02.massive capabilities, intelligence gathering computer-based
:06:02. > :06:10.capabilities, to threaten the privacy pledge of individuals
:06:10. > :06:15.inside the US by undertaking illegals of violence - yes? That is
:06:15. > :06:20.a case unfortunately, to my shock and horror, I discovered that the
:06:20. > :06:24.cause of 9/11, the US government at the very highest levels and
:06:24. > :06:28.including the White House, chosen to make a critical and far-reaching
:06:28. > :06:33.decision in the deepest of secrecy is that instead of following the
:06:33. > :06:38.law, which will be the government from actually engaging in
:06:38. > :06:42.electronics and vans without a warrant, under certain -- certain
:06:42. > :06:47.circumstances, they decided to bypass the mechanism - a mechanism
:06:47. > :06:52.signed into law by President Carter in 1978. The foreign intelligence
:06:52. > :06:58.of violence Act to deal with massive abuse of the US government
:06:58. > :07:03.in violating the rights of US citizens and those living in the US
:07:03. > :07:09.in the 1960s and 70s. A 23-year legal regime was thrown out the
:07:09. > :07:14.window. Not only be that the wheels come off, we were an entirely
:07:14. > :07:20.different vehicles. The specific beginnings of your unease, as I
:07:20. > :07:26.understand it, were not about these, as you put it, massive average and
:07:26. > :07:29.freight to the constitution, your initial concerns were a out
:07:29. > :07:36.mismanagement - about the way the NSA was using certain programmes
:07:36. > :07:41.and software in a way which you felt was totally inefficient, was
:07:41. > :07:46.costing hundreds of millions of dollars that were a necessary and
:07:46. > :07:50.suggested incompetence more than anything else? It was actually both.
:07:50. > :07:54.This was one of the public means that has been put out that somehow
:07:54. > :08:00.I was a disgruntled employee and took issue with SAN management
:08:00. > :08:05.decisions. It was both. The NSA was having great difficulty is, frankly,
:08:05. > :08:11.even had admitted that a number of studies over the past 9/11 that
:08:11. > :08:18.they were having challenges dealing with the digital age. They decided
:08:18. > :08:22.to put all the eggs in one basket. With great fanfare, then launched a
:08:22. > :08:26.programme called the Trailblazer Project. It was a multi- billion-
:08:26. > :08:34.dollar programme it went into effect in the spring of 2000. That
:08:34. > :08:40.was the programme that was going to catapult NSA into the 21st century.
:08:40. > :08:43.However, the requirements for that programme had already largely been
:08:43. > :08:48.meant by the very best of American ingenuity and innovation on a
:08:48. > :08:54.number of France and they all this garden and pushed aside. -- number
:08:54. > :08:59.of fronts. Careers were at stake, contractors were involved, a lot of
:09:00. > :09:04.money was to be made. After nine in Nevin they double-barrelled on the
:09:04. > :09:08.Trailblazer Project. Your critic of the Trailblazer Project which I had
:09:08. > :09:13.looked into in some detail was partly that it reflected the
:09:13. > :09:15.revolving-door mentality where people who had been senior in the
:09:15. > :09:19.Pentagon and the defence establishment would they go into
:09:19. > :09:28.the private contracting sectors, would get contracts from former
:09:28. > :09:32.friends and you felt that this was perhaps the maligned side of the
:09:32. > :09:37.American military industrial complex. It just seems to me
:09:37. > :09:40.surprising that a man who was frankly depicts sceptical of the
:09:40. > :09:46.military industrial complex would want to work in the National
:09:46. > :09:55.Security Agency in the first place. Remember, I had served in the
:09:55. > :09:59.government for a number of years and I answered an ad. In February
:09:59. > :10:04.2001, it was a Sunday edition of the Washington Post. They were
:10:04. > :10:08.looking for outsiders because there was concern by seven stakeholders
:10:08. > :10:13.in the government, particularly congas, that the NSA was not
:10:13. > :10:20.getting it. I answered one of the ads. I was coming in at a very
:10:20. > :10:26.senior level, not having been brought up at the NSA. And a deeply
:10:26. > :10:30.cynical about the system? Well, were not say deeply cynical. It was
:10:30. > :10:38.an opportunity to serve my nation again at a senior position and
:10:38. > :10:42.under specific circumstances to facilitate that. To help NSA to
:10:42. > :10:47.meet the challenges of the 21st century, coming out of any number
:10:47. > :10:52.of studies and concerns which had been formally boys and documented
:10:52. > :10:59.and had been testified to before Congress. -- formerly him for
:10:59. > :11:04.Easter. Moving this forward. President Obama Ana the last few
:11:04. > :11:08.months when he has been discussing the dangers of a whistle blowing
:11:08. > :11:10.when applied to national security interest, he draws a clear
:11:10. > :11:15.distinction between those people working for the federal government
:11:15. > :11:20.to blow the whistle on incompetence, mismanagement and that sort of
:11:20. > :11:24.thing and those who divulge information that threatens national
:11:24. > :11:30.security. Did you not feel that you cross a line when you started
:11:30. > :11:35.complaining not just about what she saw as the overspend, mismanagement
:11:35. > :11:39.and incompetence but the threat to constitution from some of the
:11:39. > :11:45.Samoans undertaken - did you not recognise you were crossing the
:11:45. > :11:51.line? Not crossing a line at all. The government is not to use his
:11:51. > :11:54.San Pio was to violate the very constitutional -- constitution it
:11:55. > :12:04.is supposed uphold and support. It was the government of across the
:12:05. > :12:05.
:12:05. > :12:08.line. I was faced with their distinct truth that the government
:12:08. > :12:16.was at some versing the constitution. I spent many users in
:12:16. > :12:21.the system, became part of the 9/11 congressional investigation, I was
:12:21. > :12:28.part of the office of the inspector-general... That is the
:12:28. > :12:34.point. Within the system they are and there were checks and balances
:12:34. > :12:37.in the US system - for example, the Congressional oversight of the
:12:37. > :12:45.intelligence industry and a look at how surveillance manners are
:12:45. > :12:55.handled and they can impose checks and balances. F f you have the
:12:55. > :12:55.
:12:55. > :13:01.Supreme Court. You could have gone inside the system. F you were
:13:01. > :13:10.unhappy with that and that is why you went to a newspaper and that is
:13:10. > :13:20.when you cross the line? There is nothing illegal or criminal in the
:13:20. > :13:27.US in going to reporters. It is not criminal. I went to a report that
:13:27. > :13:35.in February 2006 with a classified information to regarding the trial
:13:35. > :13:42.browser programme and the special harsh male side, without
:13:42. > :13:48.the bulging unknown, in a way that suggested D knew that what you were
:13:49. > :13:51.doing was wrong. What I was doing was not wrong. The government was
:13:51. > :13:54.so banning reporters and journalists and so it was going to
:13:55. > :14:04.make it that much more difficult to detect any activity that I may have
:14:05. > :14:16.
:14:16. > :14:21.had involving those who they were You decided to play God. At Chorley,
:14:21. > :14:27.I would not say that. I took an oath to defend the constitution.
:14:27. > :14:32.They abused power. I took those concerns, UN classified concerns to
:14:32. > :14:37.a reporter. That's all I did. That's the one thing the free press
:14:37. > :14:41.under the First Amendment is the final check before the state it the
:14:41. > :14:46.Government gets out of control. That's what I did. I just want to
:14:46. > :14:51.be clear. We can talk about what happened legally in a moment. The
:14:51. > :14:55.courts, insofar as they have tested the premise that you just put to me,
:14:55. > :14:59.what the Government was doing through the NSA was illegal and the
:15:00. > :15:05.courts never back you up. I will quote you from this three-judge
:15:05. > :15:09.panel which looked at the intelligence. They look at the case
:15:09. > :15:13.saying, ultimately, they ruled that national security interests
:15:13. > :15:18.outweighed the privacy rates of those targeted. The courts, when
:15:18. > :15:24.they tested what you believed to be coming down on your side.
:15:24. > :15:32.actually, that is not true. One of the things the Government does not
:15:32. > :15:36.divulge his state secrets. Absolute community. It's very difficult to
:15:36. > :15:42.determine those who may have been affected by the conduct of the
:15:42. > :15:49.Government, or actually part of it. You were in a catch 22. Three
:15:49. > :15:56.courts found that the NSA programme was illegal. I am part of the case
:15:56. > :16:02.that is still ongoing. There is representation from attorney Sun
:16:02. > :16:07.case. I filed an affidavit about what I knew when I was inside ENSA
:16:07. > :16:13.about the secret surveillance programme. The Government engaged,
:16:13. > :16:16.and speaking as a whistle-blower, engaged in illegal activities and
:16:16. > :16:21.they will fully chose to do that I could have remained silent. I chose
:16:21. > :16:27.to speak up within the system. I made a fateful decision to go to
:16:27. > :16:32.the reporter with what I knew. did their very best, certainly, to
:16:32. > :16:36.try to persuade you, I say politely, that you had engaged in activities
:16:36. > :16:42.which threatened the state itself. They charge you one that beat
:16:42. > :16:46.espionage Act. In 2007, as part of that investigation they conducted a
:16:46. > :16:52.raid on your home looking at your computer and your Office and files.
:16:52. > :16:58.I wonder, a personal sense of what that meant you after having served
:16:58. > :17:04.so many years inside the US security system. What was your
:17:04. > :17:09.feeling when they knock on the door and raided your home? It's a story
:17:09. > :17:13.of betrayal by my own government. For colleagues of mine were raided
:17:13. > :17:17.four months earlier so it was not surprising that they were coming to
:17:17. > :17:21.my house. It was quite something when a number of cars pulled up in
:17:21. > :17:28.front the house and one doesn't armed agents streamed across the
:17:28. > :17:34.yard with a knock on the front door. Did it make you question everything
:17:34. > :17:39.you believed about the Government you had served for so long? No, the
:17:39. > :17:44.question I had was when the Government goes outside the bounds.
:17:44. > :17:49.One of the things Thomas Jefferson said is that the constitution is
:17:49. > :17:54.the chain the Government uses. The Government was unchanging itself
:17:54. > :17:58.from the very constitution it was sworn to uphold and defend. They
:17:58. > :18:03.chose, under the guise of 9/11, that national security would take
:18:03. > :18:08.priority over everything else. I remember a chilling conversation in
:18:08. > :18:12.2001 when I said, two senior attorney's, if the law is not
:18:12. > :18:16.working, go back to Congress and change the law, that's the legal
:18:16. > :18:22.means under the constitution. I was told, if we do that they will not
:18:22. > :18:28.agree. The espionage Act, it's been used several times by Barack Obama,
:18:28. > :18:32.more than by any other president since it was passed in 1917. You
:18:32. > :18:37.may have faced the rest of your life in jail had he been convicted
:18:37. > :18:43.under that Act but in the end, you were not, they dropped the charges
:18:43. > :18:48.and you are convicted, Mr meaner with a year of probation. Do you
:18:48. > :18:55.accept, in any way, having accepted that conviction, do you accept that
:18:55. > :18:59.you did anything wrong? You say, doing wrong. It was a plea
:18:59. > :19:05.agreement. A drop goal of the original charges from the 10 counts
:19:05. > :19:11.of the indictment. I was facing 35 years' jail. The case collapsed.
:19:11. > :19:15.That was in the court. That was because of the weight of the truth.
:19:15. > :19:22.What we ultimately ended up doing, because the Government had other
:19:22. > :19:31.options, it was a plea agreement. I agreed to a misdemeanour. I
:19:31. > :19:36.exceeded the use of a computer. I being knowledge that. It was true.
:19:36. > :19:43.I guess that's the point. You have an understandably clear and
:19:43. > :19:48.specific view of what you were convicted of. I want to get to this
:19:48. > :19:52.point about the current thinking. You have been hailed, winning
:19:52. > :19:58.prizes for whistle-blowing, people mention you in the same breath,
:19:58. > :20:05.under the whistle-blowing Banner, like Bradley Manning, currently in
:20:05. > :20:12.detention facing serious charges for his alleged role in the
:20:12. > :20:18.WikiLeaks case. Another former CIA operative was convicted under the
:20:18. > :20:23.law which requires citizens not to reveal the names of C I hate
:20:23. > :20:30.Officials. I wonder whether you are happy to be in that company and do
:20:30. > :20:37.you see yourself as a whistle Blower? I have seen myself as a
:20:37. > :20:40.whistle Blower when I first made contact under the US code,
:20:40. > :20:47.specifically authorising me to go to Congress or the Department of
:20:47. > :20:53.Defence and other bodies, as a whistle Blower. That's the whistle
:20:53. > :20:57.Blower Protection Act passed in 1998. That was signed by the
:20:57. > :21:01.President. It's an unprecedented period of history under this
:21:01. > :21:07.administration, more people have been charged under the espionage
:21:07. > :21:13.Act and all other president's combine. The Act was passed in 1917.
:21:13. > :21:20.It was World War I. It was about spies, not whistle-blowers. It was
:21:20. > :21:25.now being used heavy-handed leat to go after those, insecurity, who
:21:25. > :21:31.government objects to them sniffing through things for power. A person
:21:31. > :21:36.from the National Security wrote about the dangers that come with it
:21:36. > :21:42.whistle-blowers. She speaks about the way Leeks stop people from
:21:42. > :21:46.voicing frank and honest opinions inside the system. In many ways, it
:21:46. > :21:51.retards openness and transparency within the national security system.
:21:52. > :21:56.She does have a point doesn't she? I believe it's the other way round.
:21:56. > :22:00.The Government is charging people like myself to send the chilling
:22:00. > :22:06.message is that if you decide to speak up, even within the system,
:22:06. > :22:13.you will be hammered hard. I share that on 60 minutes. It works the
:22:13. > :22:15.other way. The has a problem of trust inside the system. There's a
:22:15. > :22:19.danger that wholesale leaks of information can happen because
:22:19. > :22:23.someone inside the system has a problem with what's happening.
:22:23. > :22:30.Everyone along the chain will start to second-guess about what they can
:22:30. > :22:35.put into the public domain and on electronic media. I would disagree.
:22:35. > :22:39.As a whistle-blower, if I have a reasonable lead about government
:22:39. > :22:44.wrongdoing or fraud or waste or abuse or public safety, I have an
:22:44. > :22:49.obligation to speak up. The mechanisms which I use, they are
:22:49. > :22:55.compromised. I was retaliated against for what I did within the
:22:55. > :23:00.system. If you have read a warrant served on me, they were focusing on
:23:00. > :23:04.me and not the reporter. It was a red herring. They were more
:23:04. > :23:12.concerned about I was a source for the New York Times article
:23:12. > :23:18.published in 2005. It's about the existence of the programme.
:23:18. > :23:22.final point. They thought that I was the source. You said recently
:23:22. > :23:27.that we are now in a scary place in this country speaking truth to
:23:27. > :23:36.power has become a criminal act. You don't really believe that, do
:23:36. > :23:41.you? You make it sound like so Stalin in Russia or? The my case is
:23:41. > :23:46.any thing at all that's precisely what they did, criminalising My
:23:46. > :23:52.First Amendment activity. The activity of the Government that
:23:52. > :23:55.involves any wrongdoing. Fraud, waste and abuse. Also in this
:23:55. > :24:00.administration than any other administration in US history. That
:24:00. > :24:10.should send a real message in terms of history as to what's going on.
:24:10. > :24:10.
:24:11. > :24:14.Remember, I flew for my country of interest over East Germany. I never