-
Before Obama there were three indictments.
-
Obama has brought five in these two years.
-
If he brought it against Assange, if he did, it would be six,
-
it would be twice as many as all previous Presidents put together.
-
And what’s going on here?
-
Well it’s part of a policy of generally, use of state secrets privilege,
-
against dismissing lawsuits
-
being totally secretive, not being at all forthcoming on freedom of information in terms of,
-
of these areas.
-
So it’s part of a policy.
-
But why more than others, I don’t,
-
I would be interested to hear anybody’s suggestion.
-
In fact I think you were [unintelligible] asked, yeah, right Peter…
-
Why is it that Obama is pressing this so strongly?
-
This is before Wikileaks, remember, except for Bradley.
-
The previous four were before Wikileaks
-
and two of them were for acts undertaken under Bush
-
which Bush had not indicted.
-
Uh, Thomas Drake and… Shamai Leibowitz, who’s in prison now.
-
So in other words this, “We’re not looking back,”
-
applies to the myriad crimes
-
of the Bush administration, torture, aggressive war,
-
warrantless wiretapping…
-
crimes that strike at the heart of our Constitution
-
as well as domestic law.
-
No looking back on those.
-
The only looking back is on whistleblowers.
-
Drake and Leibowitz
-
revealing what they thought were great wasteful practices or…
-
so there’s a war on whistleblowers.
-
To me, and again, why Obama so much, I have a hypothesis, and really
-
this is just very speculative,
-
I think he’s more, feels more vulnerable
-
to whistleblowers
-
than either his predecessor, because he’s doing many
-
of the same things, one of the great secrets in the cables
-
released is how little difference there is
-
from 2008 to 2009, they’re the same practices, the same torturing,
-
not that much difference, but Bush was proud of it.
-
He did it, he did it secretly at first, it was all covert at first,
-
but when it came out, “Torture? We don’t torture, what we do, we do,
-
and I don’t apologize for it.
-
NSA warrantless wiretapping? No problem!”
-
I think Obama’s a little more embarrassed about all that coming out,
-
that he’s, that he’s acting in the same lines that he has,
-
a new war that he’s escalating, adding to Bush’s war in Afghanistan,
-
and he really wants to do what all Presidents have always wanted to do,
-
shut down leaks that they don’t control, leaks they don’t make,
-
but I think he’s, I think he’s really doing it more aggressively
-
than any previous President, and specifically
-
he’s doing it by treating the Act that I was charged under
-
as an Official Secrets Act, as an Act that criminalizes all leaks.
-
And if he gets a conviction, of any of these people,
-
not just Manning or Assange, if he gets Drake, or Kim,
-
if they go up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court takes it
-
and doesn’t notice that it’s un-Consititutional,
-
which is not a bad bet,
-
earlier Courts would almost surely have called it un-Constitutional,
-
this one might not.
-
And if he gets that, he has a very broad Official Secrets Act,
-
and from then on, all he has to do to find out who is
-
the source of any leak, one day to the next,
-
with a clear-cut crime,
-
is to call in the reporter whose byline is on the head of that column and say,
-
“We’re not charging you with anything, we’re not against the press,
-
we’re for the press. Just who committed the crime?"
-
And if the person can’t take the Fifth Amendment,
-
he or she is not being charged with anything,
-
they just either tell, or they go to jail indefinitely for contempt.
-
Judith Miller lasted 85 days, and some of them will last longer,
-
but a lot of them won’t, and from then on,
-
no source will have any basis for assuming,
-
or hoping that their,
-
their name for whistleblowing will be anonymous,
-
their only recourse will be Wikileaks, so Wikileaks matters.