:00:00. > :00:08.Now on BBC News, let's get some more HARDtalk.
:00:09. > :00:21.Today is a first for this show. My guest is currently on probation
:00:22. > :00:26.after serving two years in a US federal prison. It was eager to join
:00:27. > :00:30.me in the studio at the British government refused to give him a
:00:31. > :00:36.visa. So John Kiriakou is joining me from Washington, DC. He is a former
:00:37. > :00:41.CIA agent who played a key role in anti- terror operations after 9/11,
:00:42. > :00:46.and later went public with the truth about waterboarding. He was
:00:47. > :00:52.imprisoned the names of two CIA agents. He says he is a truth teller
:00:53. > :00:55.scapegoated by the US government IT by trade and trust. -- but he
:00:56. > :01:28.portrayed a trust. John Kiriakou in Washington, DC,
:01:29. > :01:34.welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you for having me. He walked out over
:01:35. > :01:39.federal prison pretty much over a year ago -- you walked out. Do you
:01:40. > :01:44.feel like a free man today? Know, frankly, I don't. It took me about
:01:45. > :01:49.six months before the post-traumatic stress disorder and prison dreams
:01:50. > :01:55.start, but I am also on something called federal probation for another
:01:56. > :01:59.2.5 years. So I have to get permission every time I want to
:02:00. > :02:03.leave Washington, I have to get a judge's permission to travel
:02:04. > :02:07.overseas, and submit a monthly expense report. So the courts know
:02:08. > :02:11.what I spent my money on. Let's get this business of why you are not
:02:12. > :02:15.here in the flesh as we planned. You say the judges have to give you
:02:16. > :02:19.permission to travel. Did you get permission to travel for this
:02:20. > :02:25.interview? Yes, I did, very quickly in fact. The judge usually asks for
:02:26. > :02:30.a month's notice, and I gave her two weeks. She approved immediately. So
:02:31. > :02:35.why are you here? Unfortunately the British Home Office refused my Visa.
:02:36. > :02:39.This is despite the fact I have actually been decorated by one of
:02:40. > :02:44.your intelligence services. They say it is standard practice that those
:02:45. > :02:49.convicted of crimes, for example in the United States, they do not think
:02:50. > :02:52.it granted visas when they are released. They would say it is
:02:53. > :02:58.nothing to do with anything connected to your intelligence work
:02:59. > :03:01.or the words you have given us about what you were involved in. Yes,
:03:02. > :03:07.apparently there were just following orders. That is what they say. Let's
:03:08. > :03:14.get to the eye any of this. You worked for 15 years in the CIA. Your
:03:15. > :03:19.duty was to keep America safe. You then find yourself locked up in a
:03:20. > :03:27.federal jail. How difficult was that to deal with? It was very stressful
:03:28. > :03:32.in the beginning. I was worried about it, frankly, but what I did
:03:33. > :03:38.was I made a conscious decision to rely on my CIA training and to make
:03:39. > :03:45.sure I use that training to keep myself at the top of the heap, so to
:03:46. > :03:49.speak, in prison. You said it was both the greatest and worst
:03:50. > :03:55.experience of your life. Worst I can get my head around, latest I am
:03:56. > :04:00.struggling with. It opened so many doors to me. I got to see a side of
:04:01. > :04:06.American society I otherwise would never have been exposed to. Our
:04:07. > :04:11.justice system in the United States is deeply flawed. I never paid any
:04:12. > :04:17.attention to it until I was mired in myself. For many people who do not
:04:18. > :04:20.know your case, we need to go back a bit. The bottom line is you were
:04:21. > :04:28.convicted of a very serious crime. You meet the names of two covert
:04:29. > :04:34.operatives working for the CIA -- leaked. There is no doubt you did it
:04:35. > :04:41.Why did you do it? Let me correct you. I named one covert operative.
:04:42. > :04:47.The other name wasn't over name. He was in public as a CIA officer and
:04:48. > :04:52.had never been undercover. That charge was dropped. A reporter told
:04:53. > :04:56.me he was writing out book and asked if I could introduce him to someone
:04:57. > :05:01.who might agree to sit for an interview. I said I did not know
:05:02. > :05:06.anyone who was active in the area in which it was writing. Then he said,
:05:07. > :05:14.what about...? And he offered a first name. And he said, I will say
:05:15. > :05:18.John Smith, and I said I did not know what happened to John Smith, he
:05:19. > :05:26.is retired. That is the crime I committed. You make it seem so
:05:27. > :05:31.innocent. You are a very senior CIA agent. You must have known when you
:05:32. > :05:36.provided this name you were broaching all of the oaths of
:05:37. > :05:40.secrecy and confidentiality you had taken over many years in a job. I
:05:41. > :05:44.will tell you the truth. It was a momentary lapse in judgement and I
:05:45. > :05:51.greatly regret I did it. I would then offer to you that a general
:05:52. > :05:54.leaked the name of ten covert operatives to his golfing and faced
:05:55. > :06:00.a misdemeanour charge that included no prison time, a fine, and 18
:06:01. > :06:04.months of unsupervised oration. That is what a child says in the
:06:05. > :06:09.playground. Little Johnny did something worse than me. That does
:06:10. > :06:13.not excuse what you did. I want to focus on what you did. How would you
:06:14. > :06:18.feel if you were a covert operative whose name had been leaked one of
:06:19. > :06:22.friends and colleagues. This was a friend of yours whose name you go to
:06:23. > :06:27.the reporter. How would you feel if the situation had been reversed? I
:06:28. > :06:29.would have been angry and that is why I have apologised and expressed
:06:30. > :06:35.contrition and remorse. I will also add the name was never leaked, I
:06:36. > :06:39.mean never made public in any way, and this is a double standard we see
:06:40. > :06:43.in the CIA and the Justice Department that they will look for
:06:44. > :06:46.something with which they can use in court against someone whose politics
:06:47. > :06:51.they do not like or whose opinion they do not like. When names are
:06:52. > :06:54.made all the time in Washington and there are no legal proceedings after
:06:55. > :07:00.that. We will get two reasons why you may not have been right for
:07:01. > :07:05.several reasons for a moment, but let's stick with the narrative. It
:07:06. > :07:10.seems important if you are a CIA operative that you appreciate just
:07:11. > :07:14.how sensitive the information is you hold. As I understand it,
:07:15. > :07:19.investigators discovered that you have provided at least one of these
:07:20. > :07:25.two names when they realised that the defence team representing some
:07:26. > :07:27.of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners had information that could not have,
:07:28. > :07:34.from official sources and must have come from you. That surely makes you
:07:35. > :07:40.feel terrible! That is endangering the lives of others. What happened
:07:41. > :07:45.was the reporter who had asked me for the name was secretly working
:07:46. > :07:50.for the Guantanamo defence attorneys, and when he received the
:07:51. > :07:57.name from me, he turned it over to the Guantanamo defence attorneys. I
:07:58. > :08:04.can't imagine that you worked in the CIA for so long against the al-Qaeda
:08:05. > :08:10.organisation, against global terror, how guilty you must have felt at
:08:11. > :08:15.that point. Sure, I felt awful. One of the questions frequently people
:08:16. > :08:21.ask me is our use re-? The answer is I am terribly sorry I did it. -- are
:08:22. > :08:25.you sorry? I will be sorry for the rest of my life. I have written a
:08:26. > :08:34.book in which I expressed his remarks. I am sorry it ever
:08:35. > :08:38.happened. John Rizzo, a longtime CIA lawyer has brought very long time
:08:39. > :08:42.what you it, and he concluded I think John Kiriakou wanted to be a
:08:43. > :08:46.big shot. I don't think it was evil, but it was definitely not a trivial
:08:47. > :08:51.thing giving away that name. Did you want to be a big shot? If I wanted
:08:52. > :08:56.to be a big shot I would have gone on BBC grammar and giving the name,
:08:57. > :09:03.or gone on CNN given the name -- BBC HARDtalk. I answered a question from
:09:04. > :09:06.a reporter that I shouldn't have. It had nothing to do with being a big
:09:07. > :09:15.shot. The other issue is about whether you were trying to lead the
:09:16. > :09:24.press trying to -- towards something you wanted to provide, about
:09:25. > :09:30.waterboarding. One man was very close to the waterboarding
:09:31. > :09:36.programme. Did you have a motive? You wanted to lead journalists to an
:09:37. > :09:41.investigation of everything around the waterboarding story? No, it was
:09:42. > :09:48.actually much more civil than that. I think you are talking about an
:09:49. > :09:55.article in the New York Times. -- simple than that. He did a
:09:56. > :10:05.biographical look at his career in the CIA. I did not give Martinez bat
:10:06. > :10:12.name -- Martinez' name to the author. Scott Shane interviewed what
:10:13. > :10:16.he called two dozen former and current foreign and domestic
:10:17. > :10:20.intelligence officers and he came to me saying he was doing an article on
:10:21. > :10:27.Martinez. Martinez had never been undercover ever. He was not even a
:10:28. > :10:31.CIA employee. That is why that charge was dropped. To answer your
:10:32. > :10:36.broader question, did I want the press, no. I have very strongly held
:10:37. > :10:41.leaves against torture. Especially against waterboarding. But the
:10:42. > :10:45.information was ready out there. I was happy to provide my opinion and
:10:46. > :10:49.whatever background I could because I believe my government was
:10:50. > :10:53.violating the law, not just domestic war but international law as well. I
:10:54. > :11:00.was happy to provide that opinion to the press -- domestic law. It just
:11:01. > :11:06.seems odd to me that you obviously as an operative, a singer operative
:11:07. > :11:11.in the CIA working in Pakistan and elsewhere in 2002 -- senior
:11:12. > :11:16.operative, you were aware that the government and CIA had authorised
:11:17. > :11:20.these alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding. It
:11:21. > :11:23.seems to me from reading the background you were quite happy to
:11:24. > :11:29.believe that was justifiable at the time. It was only many years later
:11:30. > :11:35.that you decided it was completely unacceptable. Why the timelag? I
:11:36. > :11:39.wanted to believe what our officers were reporting back from the field,
:11:40. > :11:43.that while this was a terrible thing, torture was a terrible thing,
:11:44. > :11:47.that it was working and saving American lives. I wanted to believe
:11:48. > :11:52.that. This is the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. We
:11:53. > :11:56.really believed Osama Bin Laden when he said al-Qaeda was planning
:11:57. > :12:01.another attack that would dwarf 9/11. While I thought it was a
:12:02. > :12:05.hideous pink, how operatives in the field was saying it was working --
:12:06. > :12:12.hideous thing. That turned out to be a lie. It was not working. No
:12:13. > :12:14.intelligence was gathered. No attacks were disrupted and no
:12:15. > :12:20.American lives were saved. When two to first find out, to use your
:12:21. > :12:26.phrase, it was a lie was like user was so effective that you told the
:12:27. > :12:34.ball one captive saying like a canary after just one waterboarding
:12:35. > :12:40.session. The things you said in the past were simply not true. I came to
:12:41. > :12:44.that understanding after the report in April 2009. The CIA Inspector
:12:45. > :12:50.General was the first person to release documentary evidence,
:12:51. > :12:55.primary source evidence, CIA operation cables, that were
:12:56. > :12:59.redacted, saying the reporting from the field was a bye and the torture
:13:00. > :13:09.had never worked. We are getting a picture of the transition you made
:13:10. > :13:14.-- was a lie. Becoming a opponent of these tactics. But let's talk about
:13:15. > :13:19.the principles you have to abide by as a CIA agent. When it came to your
:13:20. > :13:23.trial, and in the end there was a plea bargain in you did not face
:13:24. > :13:26.charges under the espionage act which could have locked you up for
:13:27. > :13:31.many years, he faced lesser charges to do with the specific leaking of
:13:32. > :13:36.the name and got 2.5 years in prison, but the judge said at the
:13:37. > :13:40.time she was really disappointed that she could not give you a more
:13:41. > :13:45.serious sentence. She said the sentence you eventually got was, way
:13:46. > :13:52.too light. Can you understand that giving your breach of trust?
:13:53. > :13:58.No I cannot and I will tell you why. In the preliminary hearing the judge
:13:59. > :14:02.described my sentence of two and half years as fair and appropriate.
:14:03. > :14:07.Those were her words. Fair and appropriate. It was only three
:14:08. > :14:10.months later when the court room was packed with every reporter in
:14:11. > :14:14.Washington that she decided to make a name for herself in the paper by
:14:15. > :14:17.saying that she wished she could've looked me up for ten years. Her
:14:18. > :14:23.point was simple and it is still surely the most important point
:14:24. > :14:27.today. This is not the case of a whistleblower, she said. This is the
:14:28. > :14:30.case of a man who betrayed a solemn trust and the truth is that is the
:14:31. > :14:35.label that will follow you to your grave. I don't think that's true. I
:14:36. > :14:40.think I am seen as a whistleblower. The judge said the same thing. The
:14:41. > :14:44.judge is handling the Edward Snowden case and she said the same thing
:14:45. > :14:48.about him. She said the same thing about Jeffrey sterling whom she
:14:49. > :14:51.sentenced to three and a half years in prison several months ago. This
:14:52. > :14:57.is a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia. It is considered to be
:14:58. > :15:00.the espionage court. No one is ever found not guilty of a national
:15:01. > :15:05.security crimes in the Eastern District of Virginia. This is what
:15:06. > :15:08.this judge does. She is a hall on national security, she doesn't
:15:09. > :15:11.believe that there is such a thing as a national security whistleblower
:15:12. > :15:15.and she changes her opinion based on whether there are reporters in the
:15:16. > :15:18.courtroom. But if you were not punished for what you have
:15:19. > :15:26.acknowledged, even on the show with deep regret, to be a serious breach
:15:27. > :15:28.of the oath that you took, if you are not punished for that, how can
:15:29. > :15:32.the US or any intelligence service function if people are not punished
:15:33. > :15:36.for breaking those rules of secrecy and confidentiality? The whole
:15:37. > :15:40.system breaks down. You are a making the assumption that I believe I
:15:41. > :15:44.shouldn't have been punished. And I acknowledged in court that I should
:15:45. > :15:48.have been punished. I gladly accepted that punishment. What I am
:15:49. > :15:53.arguing is that the courts in the United States should be consistent.
:15:54. > :15:58.I don't have four shiny stars on my shoulder, I am not a friend of the
:15:59. > :16:02.President, I do not make $250,000 a speech. If an employee of the CIA is
:16:03. > :16:05.going to leak names, there should be a standard set punishment for that
:16:06. > :16:10.no matter if you are a friend of the pond Dow president or not. Went back
:16:11. > :16:14.to David the traitorous, you say what sticks in your throat is that
:16:15. > :16:18.David the Trias is found to have leaked information including
:16:19. > :16:22.important secret information to the woman who was his lover at the time
:16:23. > :16:30.and was fined but was not sent to prison. That just sticks in your
:16:31. > :16:34.craw, does it? Not only that but the day after his sentencing he flew to
:16:35. > :16:39.Iraq on a contract to devise the White House. He didn't even lose his
:16:40. > :16:44.security clearance and not only did he leaked ten names of covert
:16:45. > :16:48.operatives to his girlfriend, but he also leaked something called the
:16:49. > :16:52.Black books. These are the most closely held secrets that the CIA
:16:53. > :17:00.has. Right but to be clear in legal terms, in the end, at the crime he
:17:01. > :17:04.is deemed to meet the standards for storage of confidential
:17:05. > :17:08.information. You can make your claims, but the court was clear and
:17:09. > :17:15.that is why he was fined and not as you were, put on a in a US federal
:17:16. > :17:18.prison. Yes and that is my argument. The fix was in because he is a
:17:19. > :17:24.friend of the president and he had those four shiny stars on his
:17:25. > :17:27.shoulder. What about Leon Panetta? You seem to have a beef against him
:17:28. > :17:35.as well because it does seem from public reporting that he
:17:36. > :17:39.confidentially released the names, or confidential information, I
:17:40. > :17:43.should say, in a presentation about the targeting of Osama Bin Laden
:17:44. > :17:52.when there were people in the room who had no security clearance. That
:17:53. > :17:58.sticks in your craw also, does it? Again, it is inconsistent. Leon
:17:59. > :18:01.Panetta provided confidential information to a Hollywood
:18:02. > :18:04.screenwriter and a Hollywood producer, including the name of the
:18:05. > :18:10.Navy SEAL who killed Osama Bin Laden. That there was no
:18:11. > :18:14.investigation of him. There was no punishment for him. So where's the
:18:15. > :18:18.consistency? Leon Panetta made it very clear that he didn't know those
:18:19. > :18:22.nonsecurity cleared people were in the room. I suppose what intrigues
:18:23. > :18:28.me is the sense of resentment you have got. Rather than just moving
:18:29. > :18:32.on... You are wrong. I have moved on. I am only answering these
:18:33. > :18:36.questions because you are asking them. Here in Washington in my
:18:37. > :18:40.everyday life, this is all water under the bridge. I haven't even
:18:41. > :18:45.discussed these issues in a year. Except it is not really water under
:18:46. > :18:49.the bridge, I'm not making this up, you have alluded to the fact that in
:18:50. > :18:53.your view, the Obama administration is more paranoid than the Nixon
:18:54. > :19:00.administration was. You have said that he is worse than Nixon. He is
:19:01. > :19:04.worse than Nixon. Even Nixon never prosecuted leakers under the
:19:05. > :19:08.espionage act. Let me tell you something, the espionage act was
:19:09. > :19:14.written in 1917 to combat German saboteurs during first World War.
:19:15. > :19:19.Between 1917 - 2009 it was used three times to charge leakers who
:19:20. > :19:22.had leaked information to the press. From 2009 to the present, President
:19:23. > :19:31.Obama has charged ten people under that act. It was not meant... What
:19:32. > :19:36.about motivation? We know that as Richard Nixon got deeper and deeper
:19:37. > :19:40.into his scandal, he was 20 save his own skin. Obama isn't, he is simply
:19:41. > :19:45.trying to save the functioning of his own security services. To quote
:19:46. > :19:49.the attorney general at the time, safeguarding classified information,
:19:50. > :19:52.including the identities of CIA officers is critical to keeping our
:19:53. > :19:58.intelligence officers safe and protecting our national security.
:19:59. > :20:02.Then I ask you, why was there no prosecution of Leon Panetta and why
:20:03. > :20:08.was there no felony prosecution of David Petraus? I agree with Eric
:20:09. > :20:11.Holder, the secrets have to remain secret but by God, if you're going
:20:12. > :20:16.to prosecute people under the espionage act, an act which is meant
:20:17. > :20:22.to convict spies and traitors, then why aren't you consistent? The
:20:23. > :20:28.interesting point, I know that you are in contact with Edward Snowden
:20:29. > :20:32.and we know that he dumped a whole mountain of sensitive, top-secret
:20:33. > :20:38.information into the public domain on the basis that you agree that
:20:39. > :20:42.those who of confidentiality ought to be held to account, do you want
:20:43. > :20:46.to see him come back to the US and face trial? I think Edward Snowden
:20:47. > :20:50.has said himself he is willing to come back to the US and face trial.
:20:51. > :20:55.Let me comment on him for a moment, if you don't mind. I would not have
:20:56. > :20:59.done things the way Edward Snowden did. I would not have released all
:21:00. > :21:05.the information that Edward Snowden released had I had access to it. For
:21:06. > :21:10.example, I don't mind that the NSA is spying on the leaders of some of
:21:11. > :21:15.our allies. I want the NSA to collect as much information on
:21:16. > :21:19.foreign leaders as possible. That is what intelligent service does. But
:21:20. > :21:24.the important thing, in my view, that he did is that he exposed
:21:25. > :21:29.crimes that the American government is committing against its own
:21:30. > :21:35.people. It is against the law, and it is indeed a violation of the NSA
:21:36. > :21:39.charter, for example, to spy on American citizens. Sure but you know
:21:40. > :21:42.there are internal procedures by which people like Edward Snowden or
:21:43. > :21:49.anyone working within the system can flag these sorts of reservations.
:21:50. > :21:53.No, that's not true. What he did by dumping information in the public
:21:54. > :21:55.domain was exposed active agents and indeed come military operations to
:21:56. > :22:02.the scrutiny of outsiders, including enemies. No, he has not declared any
:22:03. > :22:08.agents to anybody. Your premise is incorrect. Tom Drake was a very
:22:09. > :22:12.senior NSA officer. We have had him on the show. He went through the
:22:13. > :22:16.chain of command and went to the Inspector General and the General
:22:17. > :22:19.Counsel in the NSA, then he went to the Inspector General at the
:22:20. > :22:22.Department of defence and when he got no satisfaction, he went to the
:22:23. > :22:28.House Select Committee on intelligence and that got him nine
:22:29. > :22:32.felony charges including seven counts of espionage. In addition,
:22:33. > :22:34.while there is a whistleblower protection act in the United
:22:35. > :22:40.States, NSA will sell blowers are exempt from its coverage so there is
:22:41. > :22:48.no place to go -- whistleblowers. If you have any concerns of fraud or
:22:49. > :22:52.any -- illegality, the only place to go as the press and then you have to
:22:53. > :22:55.face the consequences. And you have had to face them puppy you've been
:22:56. > :23:00.out of the CIA for more than a decade now. 14 years now. How do you
:23:01. > :23:05.feel about the way the CIA is working today and the morale inside
:23:06. > :23:11.the agency today? I think morale is probably a little better now than it
:23:12. > :23:14.was at the time that I left. Because it appears we are not torturing
:23:15. > :23:19.people in secret prisons anymore. But there is an ongoing problem that
:23:20. > :23:23.the CIA has and that is its inability to infiltrate foreign
:23:24. > :23:29.terrorist groups. Rather than focusing on things like collecting
:23:30. > :23:33.information on American citizens, for example, I think all of our
:23:34. > :23:36.intelligence services should be focused on infiltrating foreign
:23:37. > :23:42.terrorist groups in order to disrupt future attacks and I think the CIA
:23:43. > :23:44.is still, all these years after September 11, unsuccessful in doing
:23:45. > :23:48.that. To put it bluntly, you think there is too much focus on drones
:23:49. > :23:55.and what you call paramilitary operations and not enough on basic
:23:56. > :24:00.intelligence gathering? Yes. The CIA is not a paramilitary organisation,
:24:01. > :24:04.it was never designed to be. It was designed to recruit spies to steal
:24:05. > :24:09.secrets and then to analyse the secrets and pass them to US
:24:10. > :24:15.policymakers. It needs to get back to those core values. And to keeping
:24:16. > :24:19.its own secret safe. Indeed. All right. John Kiriakou, a pleasure to
:24:20. > :24:23.talk to you. Thank you for being on HARDtalk. The pleasure is mine.
:24:24. > :24:29.Thank you very much.