0:00:07.450,0:00:10.590
Before Obama there were three indictments.

0:00:11.530,0:00:15.200
Obama has brought five in these two years.

0:00:15.980,0:00:19.040
If he brought it against Assange, if he did, it would be six,

0:00:19.050,0:00:22.990
it would be twice as many as all previous Presidents put together.

0:00:24.510,0:00:25.630
And what’s going on here?

0:00:25.680,0:00:30.960
Well it’s part of a policy of generally, use of state secrets privilege,

0:00:31.050,0:00:35.160
against dismissing lawsuits

0:00:35.430,0:00:40.850
being totally secretive, not being at all forthcoming on freedom of information in terms of,

0:00:40.850,0:00:43.020
of these areas.

0:00:43.020,0:00:44.890
So it’s part of a policy.

0:00:45.110,0:00:47.410
But why more than others, I don’t,

0:00:47.410,0:00:50.060
I would be interested to hear anybody’s suggestion.

0:00:50.410,0:00:55.020
In fact I think you were [unintelligible] asked, yeah, right Peter…

0:00:55.210,0:00:58.510
Why is it that Obama is pressing this so strongly?

0:00:58.820,0:01:01.700
This is before Wikileaks, remember, except for Bradley.

0:01:02.090,0:01:04.540
The previous four were before Wikileaks

0:01:04.770,0:01:08.690
and two of them were for acts undertaken under Bush

0:01:09.030,0:01:10.660
which Bush had not indicted.

0:01:11.090,0:01:16.840
Uh, Thomas Drake and… Shamai Leibowitz, who’s in prison now.

0:01:16.940,0:01:19.580
So in other words this, “We’re not looking back,”

0:01:20.030,0:01:22.700
applies to the myriad crimes

0:01:22.860,0:01:26.160
of the Bush administration, torture, aggressive war,

0:01:26.270,0:01:28.560
warrantless wiretapping…

0:01:29.290,0:01:32.130
crimes that strike at the heart of our Constitution

0:01:32.270,0:01:33.690
as well as domestic law.

0:01:33.790,0:01:35.310
No looking back on those.

0:01:35.390,0:01:38.610
The only looking back is on whistleblowers.

0:01:39.360,0:01:40.680
Drake and Leibowitz

0:01:41.070,0:01:43.440
revealing what they thought were great wasteful practices or…

0:01:43.690,0:01:45.420
so there’s a war on whistleblowers.

0:01:45.890,0:01:50.420
To me, and again, why Obama so much, I have a hypothesis, and really

0:01:50.420,0:01:51.930
this is just very speculative,

0:01:52.910,0:01:56.050
I think he’s more, feels more vulnerable

0:01:56.440,0:01:57.600
to whistleblowers

0:01:57.750,0:02:00.640
than either his predecessor, because he’s doing many

0:02:00.660,0:02:03.030
of the same things, one of the great secrets in the cables

0:02:03.060,0:02:05.010
released is how little difference there is

0:02:05.290,0:02:09.860
from 2008 to 2009, they’re the same practices, the same torturing,

0:02:10.000,0:02:13.430
not that much difference, but Bush was proud of it.

0:02:13.630,0:02:17.550
He did it, he did it secretly at first, it was all covert at first,

0:02:17.610,0:02:23.020
but when it came out, “Torture? We don’t torture, what we do, we do,

0:02:23.130,0:02:24.690
and I don’t apologize for it.

0:02:24.810,0:02:28.870
NSA warrantless wiretapping? No problem!”

0:02:30.180,0:02:33.070
I think Obama’s a little more embarrassed about all that coming out,

0:02:33.220,0:02:36.360
that he’s, that he’s acting in the same lines that he has,

0:02:36.360,0:02:41.090
a new war that he’s escalating, adding to Bush’s war in Afghanistan,

0:02:41.310,0:02:45.920
and he really wants to do what all Presidents have always wanted to do,

0:02:45.920,0:02:49.870
shut down leaks that they don’t control, leaks they don’t make,

0:02:50.930,0:02:54.540
but I think he’s, I think he’s really doing it more aggressively

0:02:54.770,0:02:57.240
than any previous President, and specifically

0:02:57.330,0:03:00.900
he’s doing it by treating the Act that I was charged under

0:03:02.110,0:03:06.310
as an Official Secrets Act, as an Act that criminalizes all leaks.

0:03:06.510,0:03:11.780
And if he gets a conviction, of any of these people,

0:03:11.880,0:03:15.700
not just Manning or Assange, if he gets Drake, or Kim,

0:03:15.890,0:03:19.440
if they go up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court takes it

0:03:19.690,0:03:22.560
and doesn’t notice that it’s un-Consititutional,

0:03:23.190,0:03:24.730
which is not a bad bet,

0:03:25.150,0:03:28.340
earlier Courts would almost surely have called it un-Constitutional,

0:03:28.740,0:03:30.040
this one might not.

0:03:30.450,0:03:34.110
And if he gets that, he has a very broad Official Secrets Act,

0:03:34.160,0:03:38.330
and from then on, all he has to do to find out who is

0:03:38.400,0:03:40.850
the source of any leak, one day to the next,

0:03:41.650,0:03:43.180
with a clear-cut crime,

0:03:43.540,0:03:48.090
is to call in the reporter whose byline is on the head of that column and say,

0:03:48.180,0:03:50.570
“We’re not charging you with anything, we’re not against the press,

0:03:50.620,0:03:52.670
we’re for the press. Just who committed the crime?"

0:03:54.400,0:03:56.520
And if the person can’t take the Fifth Amendment,

0:03:56.560,0:03:58.650
he or she is not being charged with anything,

0:03:59.350,0:04:04.270
they just either tell, or they go to jail indefinitely for contempt.

0:04:04.270,0:04:08.340
Judith Miller lasted 85 days, and some of them will last longer,

0:04:08.940,0:04:11.290
but a lot of them won’t, and from then on,

0:04:11.290,0:04:14.890
no source will have any basis for assuming,

0:04:14.930,0:04:16.940
or hoping that their,

0:04:16.940,0:04:20.860
their name for whistleblowing will be anonymous,

0:04:21.570,0:04:25.530
their only recourse will be Wikileaks, so Wikileaks matters.