Title: War & Military · Exposing Crimes is Not a Crime  · John Kiriakou, Jesselyn Radack... · #DNL37
Show: Disruption Network Lab
Date: 2026-03-20
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8HH4U7_tKo
Duration: 1:44:10

---

[00:05] [music] [applause]

[00:35] >> Hello. Welcome everyone at the second panel of our conference exposing crimes is not a crime the real world consequences of WikiLeaks. And today we focus on the discourse of war and military with really great people that then you are going to see on stage. This topic is very important in the history

[01:07] of WikiLeaks as we will see has been important also thanks to the activity of sources and whistleblowers like for example Chelsea Manning that has been very crucial for the release of WikiLeaks in this field. WikiLeaks of course started already before on this subject from 2007 with the US military equipment in Afghanistan and Iraq but then in 2010

[01:38] we have the publishing on collateral murder and the Afghan war logs and then Iraq war logs. And so we really have to say that thanks to Chelsea Manning a lot of people learn what means to face a war crime and of course thanks to the work of WikiLeaks that published the documents. And so, I uh also hope that the discussion of today will bring us uh in understanding better the presence of wars because since four year

[02:11] we have been witnessing many wars uh from Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon um and so also uh Iran. And so, of course there is a lot to say uh what is the uh still that WikiLeaks can can teach us in understanding what is happening in the geopolitical context. So, I feel also to say the that we as the Disruption Network Lab we have a lot of gratitude for whistleblowers

[02:41] that in the field of warfare uh did a very important act of courage uh to tell the truth in the field of uh criminal uh action uh in the context of war. And so, I want to say that uh of course uh we have to thanks Daniel Ellsberg but also other whistleblowers that were with us at the Disruption Network Lab since the beginning. Our first conference in 2015 invited as keynote uh Brandon Bryant and

[03:15] many uh whistleblower of the US drone program also been with us like Shawn Westmorelands. We also spoke a lot about uh Daniel Hale at the Disruption Network Lab. Uh we invited also Reality Winner um and so we also have to thank Heather Linebaugh uh that we saw in the wonderful film of Sonia Kennebeck uh for the action that also she did in the uh exposing war crimes. And so, today also

[03:45] we will have two whistleblowers in our panel Lisa Ling and uh John Kiriakou together with other great speakers that then our moderator will introduce. And I'm happy now to introduce our moderator, Michael Sontheimer. He's a German journalist and also historian, one of the founders of the daily newspaper taz, die tageszeitung. And so he has been reporting on the Assange case since 2010 and

[04:16] played a key role at Der Spiegel in 2012 for publishing the WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden documents. So I'm very happy to introduce here Michael Sontheimer and will he will introduce the rest of the panel. Thank you. >> [applause] [applause]

[04:49] >> Good evening. Thanks a lot. Uh I just introduce shortly uh my panelistas as like as they >> [clears throat] >> I call them and I have to my right, to your left, I have Lisa Ling um who started to work for the US military in the early '90s as a medical search a surgical technique [clears throat] technician and nurse. She transferred to the Air Force combat communication where she participated in operation maintenance

[05:19] and security of network communication systems. As networks grew in size and complexity, her unit was moved and assimilated into the drone program. After her military service, Lisa Ling traveled to Afghanistan to see firsthand the effects and the consequences of US drone programs and targeted killings on civilians of programs she participated in. And to my left, we have Jesselyn Radack.

[05:51] Jesselyn Radack, if you are somehow interested in whistleblower, you should know her. To be honest, I've seen her in many conferences in Europe in the last years. She heads the whistleblower and source protection program at ExposeFacts. And her work focuses on the issue of secrecy, surveillance, torture, and drones, where she has been at the forefront of challenging the US government's war on whistleblowers. Among her clients are nationally

[06:22] security and intelligence community employees who have been investigated, charged, or prosecuted under the Espionage Act, including Daniel Hale, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, whom I have seen here just a few minutes ago, and John Kiriakou. She served on the DC Bar Legal Ethics Committee and worked at the Justice Department for 7 years, first as a trial attorney and later as a legal ethics advisor. We

[06:53] don't talk about prices. Everybody of us has won some prizes during all the >> [laughter] >> So, I just come to John Goetz, who is on my left. We should we should admit that we worked together at Der Spiegel. John was there in around 2010, the WikiLeaks year. 2010 was is for WikiLeaks year. He was together with other colleagues. He was yeah, preparing the publication of the

[07:24] diplomatic cables of the Afghan War Logs and all these big scoops by WikiLeaks. And since then, he's working for NTR, which is a public radio in North Germany, and for the Deutsche Zeitung. And he made a few films. Maybe some of you have seen one of his documentaries. I'm happy that he is here. I'm happy that you all are here. And last but not least, we have John Kiriakou. Just just

[07:55] on the right. If I would find the right paper. Oh, yeah, here we got it. John Kiriakou is a journalist meanwhile to say a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, a former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a former counter-terrorism consultant for ABC News. He was responsible for the capture of a high-ranking Al-Qaeda official in 2002.

[08:26] But [snorts] John Kiriakou decided to blow the whistle on the CIA's torture program telling ABC News that the CIA tortured prisoners. And he became indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act, served 23 months in jail. And yeah, as a result of these revelations, John wrote eight books if I get it right. And

[08:57] I I only quote one, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA and the War on Terror. Thank you all for coming, for traveling quite a distance to Berlin. And let me start our talk with a very short and simple question. When did you come across WikiLeaks and what did you think about the concept of WikiLeaks when you learned about it? Please. >> Um

[09:30] My first contact with WikiLeaks was actually I was at Spiegel and actually my colleague Marcel Rosenbach is here was actually quite aware of WikiLeaks as a phenomenon and and it was in some ways he was like the first tech reporter who I knew. And we were given the job actually to go over to London and and uh be in the bunker at the Guardian when the initial Afghan war logs stuff was happening.

[10:01] And I mean I think there's a point in terms of the meaning of it that that I wanted to say and that was that there's an aspect of WikiLeaks that I don't think that's been talked about up until now and it has to do with WikiLeaks not just as a platform for leakers but there's actually a more there's a political thought behind it around this idea of courage is courageous.

[10:32] And if you think of the different models we have of actually changing society you know there's kind of parliamentary democracy there's I don't know dictatorships there's revolution but the idea of actually transforming the world through leaks that actually looking at the group of system systems operators like in the in the world of of the internet and actually politicizing those people

[11:04] and that there's actually a possibility and that was the the at least the as I understood it and in our conversations with Julian at the time was actually leaking as a way to basically take the air out of power right to pop the bubble right and not just as like individual leaks but actually the idea with this courage is courageous which is why so happy that you're here, right? Is that

[11:35] it would continue. And if you actually look at the trajectory of WikiLeaks, right? You you have initially you have Chelsea Manning, but actually the the Snowden leaks are very much as a part of that concept. Um okay, I'll shut up. Sorry. >> Anything else? Anybody else? >> I I I remember exactly what I was doing when the WikiLeaks news hit the hit the news. I was uh working for John Kerry on the Senate

[12:06] Foreign Relations Committee staff. And he was so appalled that somebody would leak these classified cables. He called the senior staff together. So, we had to meet in his office. And what he wanted was a lot of bobbing heads to say, "Yes, Senator, this is terrible. This is appalling." And one of the other senior staff members was was a journalist, a well-known journalist, two-time Pulitzer Prize nominee. And he says, "Now, wait a minute. Wait a

[12:37] minute. Before we get ahead of ourselves, it's illegal to classify a crime. It's illegal to classify a criminal act for the purpose of keeping it from the American people." Kerry didn't want to hear that at all. But then I jumped in and I said, "But he he's right. You can't classify something just because you don't want people to know about it. If there's a video of people being murdered in cold blood, you can't say, "Oh, top secret. Got to take that down." It's

[13:08] a crime. There's nothing that makes it top secret or or classified in any way. So, we ended up arguing easily for 3 hours. And then he told us, "Just get the hell out of his office." That's what I was doing. >> I I learned about WikiLeaks. I first heard of them in 2008, but when they were really on came just on the map in a big way was with the collateral murder video. And that

[13:41] happened to dovetail with Obama indicting Thomas Drake under the Espionage Act for stuff that sounded to me like classic whistleblowing that I myself had engaged in, namely going through internal channels, which didn't work, and then going to the media. And I remember for that I had been put under criminal investigation for leaking and referred to the bars I belonged to

[14:13] as a lawyer and put on the no-fly list. So, when I heard someone was indicted under the Espionage Act, I knew that we had really crossed the Rubicon by unearthing this ancient law and having it applied to someone for whistleblowing activity. And the thing I have to say about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is that when no other news outlet in the country would touch Tom Drake and

[14:45] eventually John Kiriakou and Jeffrey Sterling and Daniel Hale and so many other people I've been honored to represent, WikiLeaks and Julian were there, they were vocal, they called it out, and this is until even recently in Reality Winner's case, and I worked on her advocacy, too. And again, WikiLeaks supported whistleblowers. That's what they did, and journalists and people who engaged in dissent. So, that was my how I learned of them.

[15:17] >> Thank you. >> So, so when I was introduced to WikiLeaks, I was inside one of those places that WikiLeaks wanted to get into and let loose the secrets, right? And so, the way that I heard about WikiLeaks, unlike a lot of, you know, other folks that I know, was, "Don't touch that. Don't go near that. Don't take that gate when you leave the base when protesters are out there. Don't do that." And I heard it more and more,

[15:49] especially when Chelsea Manning stepped forward. You know, and they, you know, I mean, it was the talk of inside those secret spaces. And this is when part of the the campaign to um smear him in those spaces was just ongoing. It was It was uh It was pretty ridiculous. And um that's what I heard. What I didn't get to hear was things from the other side of that secret wall. Because

[16:21] they held, you know, they we were pretty much held pretty tightly in that way. And so, many of us were just like scared at first to go near it. So. >> If I just may uh add an anecdote, uh I heard the word WikiLeaks for the first time when I met a a hacker in Berlin. And we we should uh I mean, just point out that in the history of WikiLeaks, hackers from Berlin played a quite important role.

[16:53] So, an old friend of mine with the Chaos Computer Club came around and said, "Uh you're with Der Spiegel. You should meet somebody interesting." And I met Daniel Schmitt. He wasn't really Schmitt. He was Domscheit-Berg. And then he chickened out very soon of the whole WikiLeaks project. But when he told me what's the concept of WikiLeaks, I thought, "Well, for a journalist, the protection of sources is one decide for investigative journalists absolutely

[17:24] decisive. So, the if you find a possibility that me as a journalist, I can get in contact with informants or with a whistleblowers without knowing them, that is the securest way to organize your relationship to informants. So, I thought for journalists that is a quite revolutionary idea. In In the end, uh we found out that many whistleblowers want to have contact with the editors

[17:56] over the journalists. So, it's it's not so easy, but the but I thought, "Oh, well, for investigative journalists, this is a very innov- innovative, good idea." And uh we mentioned already the year 2010 with the Chelsea Manning leaks. Have you any I mean, memories? Did they really have an impact back then? I mean, for us it was shocking. The The collateral murders is still today is absolutely shocking evidence. Uh but uh

[18:28] did it have any political influence, the the publications? As far as I know, nobody has been put in front of a court because of any WikiLeaks publications. But I don't know if this this this is right, but what is what do you think is has been the impact of the 2010 publications? >> Well, I mean, I'm curious what everyone else has to say, but I mean, there was a when the diplomatic cables came out, right? There was American diplomacy was

[18:59] paralyzed for several months, right? I mean, they literally were going around the world and uh apologizing for things that they had said to people uh had said it behind the backs of, of their partners, right? And so, it, it basically, I mean, there's an argument to be made that there were other kind of American adventures that didn't happen at that time because they were paralyzed. So, um, also, if you look at, at the Afghan war logs and the Iraq war, you know, war logs, there were also important stories

[19:32] about war crimes, the task force, whatever it was called, 170, whatever it was, later has turned out, actually, it's been shown to be really as an assassination squad. Um, those were important stories and I, and I, actually, do think they had a big impact. >> Wait, do you think that the capacities of the US military or the, the tactics of the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq has been altered by the publications of WikiLeaks?

[20:03] >> I mean, I think that diplomacy was paralyzed. I actually really >> Diplomacy, but I'm talking about the, not about the diplomatic cables, but about the war, Afghani and Iraq war documents. >> No. Absolutely not. Not even a little bit, not even a tiny bit. What did happen, um, was something that Daniel Ellsberg used to say, um, that I was recently talking with Jesselyn about and that is that courage is contagious. What it did was it showed a route where people could

[20:36] come clean with actions that were happening within their purview that were wrong, that were illegal, that were fraud, that were abuse because before WikiLeaks, right, there were ways for certain people who worked in certain places to blow the whis, the, blow the whistle. There were people in banks who could actually earn money for blowing the whistle and that was that was something that people knew. That was common knowledge. But when it comes to national security, when it comes to the things that the state is doing with our tax dollars behind closed doors. If

[21:08] you're someone working in there, it is definitely not obvious how to blow the whistle, how to report a crime safely. And that, you know, that was something that was badly needed at the time. And that that you have to say that WikiLeaks came through. They saw a need, they stepped up, they met it, and um and they started a design pattern that caught on like wildfire. All of the sudden you're hearing about other journalist

[21:39] organization have one of those drop boxes where you can send things. Like that, you know, I mean to me, from my vantage point, that was amazing. It was something that was very much incredible, and at the time it was very very new. Um and so, you know, definitely uh credit where credit is due. I mean, that that whole process snowballed. And the other thing that happened was the idea of whistleblowing came into

[22:09] conversations, everyday conversations at the coffee table, within the secret spaces where I worked, everywhere. People were using the word whistleblower. I may have heard it once in my lifetime before WikiLeaks, but after WikiLeaks, it became, you know, common verbiage. >> Other good things? >> [applause] >> To WikiLeaks, uh the Arab Spring was attributed to WikiLeaks revelations.

[22:42] I would say that WikiLeaks also they pioneered the model for mass digital document leaks on a global level in partnership with other news organizations, and they also pioneered the concept of source protection, encryption, and privacy. And picking up on what Lisa said, I mean, to the extent that we now

[23:13] have SecureDrop and Signal and ProtonMail and Tails and Tor, all of those things, WikiLeaks was at the inception of that and really those technologies all have their foundation in things that Julian Assange said we desperately needed and tried to make happen. And you know, it's a tragedy the price that he had to pay for basically establishing

[23:44] the ecosystem that we have for journalism now. >> May I add to I think there's something that's even more important than Chelsea Manning's diplomatic the release of the diplomatic cables. It came later with the release of the Vault 7 revelations. Joshua Schulte, God bless him, whether he admits it or not, I think is conversation for another time, but but the Vault 7 revelations exposed to

[24:14] the world that the CIA can take control of your car while you're driving it by hacking into the car's computer and send you off of a bridge or into a tree so that it looks like a suicide or an accident. That that the CIA can can turn on the microphone or the the speaker rather of your smart TV, reverse it so that it acts as a microphone even with the TV appearing to be off and listen to the conversations in your room. What he revealed to us

[24:45] really came down to matters of life or death. And while it was really cool to read what our State Department people were saying about our diplomatic partners behind their backs. These really were issues of life and death when it came to the the Vault 7 revelations. I you know, the first thing I did when I when I saw the Chelsea Manning documents was I searched for myself. And I thought, "Dog gone that Chelsea Manning released a cable with my social

[25:16] security number in it." I was angry for a little while. And then Ray McGovern said, "Wait a minute. Sure, none of us wants our social security number out there, but there's a bigger issue here." And it was Ray that talked me off the ledge. When Vault 7 came out, I thought, "My God, whoever did this did a real public service. This was a This was a life and death public service." And Lisa's correct that in the beginning it didn't affect things like covert action or or covert operations.

[25:47] It was well after uh well not well after. It was after Chelsea Manning's revelations, for example, that John Brennan started to convene what what became known as the Tuesday morning kill list meeting. So, WikiLeaks is out there with these cables and John Brennan still is scheduling meetings on Tuesday mornings at the White House where everybody gets together and they come up with a list of people to kill that week. The the teams fan out across the the globe. They kill the people on the list and then they meet up again next Tuesday morning to

[26:19] figure out who they're going to kill that week. That was after WikiLeaks. So, there's still a lot more work to do. WikiLeaks was an incredible like once-in-a-century kind of public service, but there's still more work to do. And more work akin to Vault 7. >> [clears throat] [applause] >> But then let me tell you that when I remember the Vault 7, I did it for Spiegel, I had big problems to

[26:51] convince my colleagues that this is really uh relevant [clears throat] and it's newsworthy. I think it was more than 20 per- portions. They were some quite similar sometimes. And I had really I mean, it was not political objections, but people said, "Oh, that's not of public interest really. Do you think that's for some some secret service people who going to study all that the because it's from the CIA." The end and compared to the public outcry and

[27:22] public impact of the 2010 it Chelsea Manning the at leaks, it wasn't it wasn't that big. It was a sort of secret service a story I I would say. But but let me ask you, do you think that if whistleblowers are publishing documents from the military which goes national security, aren't they persecuted much harder than other whistle- whistle- whistleblowers?

[27:54] That that was my impression that I mean, you can Well, if you do something about corruption, that's all fine. I mean, it's not fine, but you can get problems, but if it really gets to the US military, I mean, you should know what risks you're taking. >> Well, and that's the thing, right? So, right now, like everybody thinks war is all about bullets and bombs. It's all about drones. It's all about these things that kill people. No. What war is really about is money. And some of the things that was put out

[28:25] by WikiLeaks showed us that war was more than bullets and bombs. It showed us about the diplomacy. It showed us about the computer things that John was just talking about. It showed us all of these things. And then what happened was that people's hunger to be able to have knowledge about these things and to be able to see these things changed in a radical way. More people stepped up and started questioning what was going on behind closed doors. Before WikiLeaks, we were all like drones ourselves walking around

[28:57] and the systems were working. We weren't, you know, in this state of, you know, hyper-normalcy. Um, but after WikiLeaks came out, more people started to question the things that were going on around them. More people started to question where their tax dollars were going. More people started to question is this idea of a petrodollar and the idea of of wars over oil, is this stuff real? And those are the kind of conversations that we need to have, right? What I I want to see in if I were king or queen

[29:28] for day for a day, right? If I were to rule the world for 1 day, what I'd want to see is for people to be able to let truth see the light of day without becoming martyrs. I'd like to see activists hit the street without thinking that going to jail is their only option for publicity. I'd like media outlets to step up and step away from bending the knee to people in power to actually do their freaking job. Because we can all day long about

[30:01] these wars. And we can, you know, try to stand on street corners. We can try to do all of these things about all the but when push comes to shove, right now, right now, there is an empire that's falling. And scratching the chalkboard, that's the elephant in the room because the petrodollar is threatened. And the ramifications of that are going to be global. And so these are the kind of things we need people to step up and step out. We need people who work in the tech

[30:31] industry with AI, who understand the fact that we need a whole lot more data and that other countries have that whole lot more data and, you you to be able so that we can have public discourse about what's going to happen next. So, that's it. Thanks. >> [applause] >> I was just going to say since that this is about military and whistleblowers, I would be remiss in pointing out that so

[31:02] many of the most consequential whistleblowers in US history have come from the military. So, as far back as Daniel Ellsberg and and Tony Russo, Ron Ridenhour in Vietnam, in the Iraq war, Chelsea Manning, Larry Wilkerson, who I think might be here, Joe Darby, again, all military. Afghanistan war, again, Matthew Hoh, Chelsea Manning, Danny Davis.

[31:32] Uh I mean, there's so many. Like I I I was trying to list them all. I'm not going to be able to And of course, in the war on terror, drone whistleblowers and again, also Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden, other people. And I think part of the reason for that is because in the military, unlike most Amer- regular Americans, if you're in the military or you're an immigrant, you have to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. And I think they take that oath

[32:02] seriously. And the second part of that oath that the military take is that you have to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I think because so many people in the military took that oath, they have this higher calling that they have a duty not to the president, not to an agency head, not to a supervisor, not to Pete

[32:33] Hegseth or other or Tulsi Gabbard or any of these other clowns, but to the Constitution and the rule of law. And that is like will be one of the few saving graces going on right now. So, thank you people in the military. >> [applause] >> I I just I would >> to do a quick shout out for Ethan McCord who saved those children in the collateral murder video. We often forget

[33:04] about him, but the bravery that he displayed in those moments to save those children's lives. Incredible. >> I just I would not object your observation that so many uh whistleblowers come from the military. But I I would say that their cases are just much more in the media. I mean, there are so many whistleblowers in a little company

[33:35] somewhere and never any anybody heard of them. And maybe they can change something and it's and they don't have these severe consequences. Not every whistleblower ends up in in jail quite soon. So, so so I would say but the most prominent and the most dramatic cases are certainly in the field of military and espionage. We're going to have an a panel about that tomorrow. >> Yes, but they are the least protected. Corporate whistleblowers have have

[34:05] whistleblower protection law. The people who are not protected are people in the US government. Specifically, there is a carve out for national security and intelligence whistleblowers. And by the way, that laundry list of people, I mean, if we talk about Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Reality Winner, Daniel Hale, military military military. Uh

[34:35] But people in the government and military, the protections are much weaker, especially for those doing NatSec and Intel. And the majority of those people I named were doing national security and intelligence work. And to its credit, those were people that WikiLeaks was was supporting and defending when no other journalistic outlet in the US would touch them. And I know that because a lot of them were my clients, and we

[35:07] desperately desperately needed the a stamp of journalism rather than journalists calling all of my clients hero or traitor. No, act like a journalist, don't be a government watchdog and not a government lapdog. And that's what I've tried to say this whole time. >> I add something to that, too, Jess? Um one thing about WikiLeaks, and I think this is a very important thing, is WikiLeaks never got anybody in trouble. You go to something like The Intercept,

[35:39] you might as well walk up to the FBI with your arms outstretched to to cuff you. Right? I I We were just talking about this earlier tonight. After after the fifth whistleblower was arrested after having communication either with The Intercept or journalists from The Intercept, I tweeted at The Intercept and I said, "Hey, Intercept, serious question. You guys are an FBI front organization, right?" >> [laughter] >> I mean, you must be. Or you're so colossally stupid and lazy

[36:13] and bad at your jobs that literally every whistleblower who reaches out to The Intercept ends up in prison. Not with WikiLeaks. Not at all with WikiLeaks. We used to tell people all the time, if you really want to leak national security information for the purpose of blowing the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety, you got to do it through WikiLeaks because they're the only ones who are going to protect your identity.

[36:44] >> [applause] >> We shouldn't only praise WikiLeaks tonight. Though but I I am I add one one point which is for me as a historian and the journalist very important is that WikiLeaks never published a forged document or it was never proven. And that's something I mean if you look at the sheer number of documents WikiLeaks has published and not one single case and there might be people trying to get some

[37:18] forged documents that to WikiLeaks and get them published. It never happened. So this is quite something. And you you want to do it. And um But coming back to my question, is it the military fields and the national security which produces the uh uh yeah, most dangerous and if you look at the other side, the whistleblowers or is it What would you say? >> So it's incentivization.

[37:50] Bankers and bank adjacent people are encouraged to blow the whistle to line their pocketbooks. They actually get rewards for doing that. And that is something that Edward Snowden had said that we have really twisted incentives for doing things. Um pretty much the entirety of the Western world. And so what I would like to say to any governments out there that happen to be listening, hi y'all. Um is simply this. If you had a problem with WikiLeaks, fix the problem you have

[38:20] with your internal whistle-blowing. Pass legislation that supports whistle-blowing. Do those things and you'll never have a problem with journalists again because it's not the journalist stepping up and telling the truth that is the problem. What the problem is is that there are no real safe ways for people to blow the whistle on on crime, illegality, fraud, abuse, all of that. There is no And yet you can do it in a banking system. And the other thing that I want to say is look out. It's going to

[38:50] change. Because corporations are no longer going to be incentivized because now they're working a lot of tech corporations, a lot of, you know, uh energy corporations, they have now become military-adjacent and they are now part of that huge umbrella that's left unprotected called the national security. And so now we have a period of time when we can think about what strategies we can use to stop this rule.

[39:20] Because it's going to be too late. Right now, you know, our the US military is purchasing things using a venture capital model. So, I mean, the writing is on the wall out there. Um and it's just it's up to people to take the same courage that WikiLeaks showed us so that courage can continue to be contagious. >> But >> [applause] >> What is it If I listen to a a Jesselyn Raddack, I

[39:52] might get the impression that every Monday a new whistleblower is coming around the corner. It but I mean, if we look at the publications of WikiLeaks, the last publication of documents from the military the section is in 2018. I still can remember it because I I wrote the Spiegel story. That is now 8 years ago. So so we have a we have not a proper supplier with whistleblower. I think this this

[40:24] might be a problem. >> Yeah, well, I think I think the country has become more and more locked down. We have a president that uh actively, vociferously hates the the media and calls the media the enemy of the people. I think also the fact that whistleblowers have continued to be prosecuted at a same or even faster pace each year and they've

[40:56] their sentences have gotten longer and harsher. I mean, Daniel Hale was not even sent At least you got a prison camp, John. Daniel Hale was put in a communications management unit. There only two in the US and they were built specifically to house terrorists. I mean, think of what message that sent that the whistleblower is an information terrorist and that was what they told the court. In reality,

[41:26] Daniel Hale is a pacifist. That was why he was allegedly blowing the whistle on the drone program. And again, I don't even get me started on the intercept. Um I won't go there. They don't deserve it, but um I mean, that's my point. Like I [snorts] just feel like we are in such a chilling climate right now. It's hard to advise people to blow the whistle because

[41:57] they see so much proof of of I mean, these people have been made into poster children, including John, including Tom, including Daniel. I mean, the long laundry list of people who've been made an object of what the US government can do to you. And I wish we had a very active WikiLeaks equivalent. I know the model of WikiLeaks has been followed, certainly. I mean, you look at the Panama Papers,

[42:28] and you look at other mass exposures of huge amounts of information. And the tech is a two sides of a coin. Technology makes it easier than ever to leak, but it also makes it easier to get caught. >> No, I mean, I think the >> [clears throat] >> the idea of WikiLeaks of the systematic cultivation of leaks as a way of transforming society is a is is an idea that actually is still very much alive,

[43:00] right? And of course, the US government has done everything it can it it it can to stop that, right? I mean, it's not a surprise, but actually the notion of of systematically encouraging and make and using technology to make it safe for people to do as an idea remains quite sound, right? >> And if you're thinking about blowing the whistle, my biggest suggestion, especially if you're from the US,

[43:31] call an attorney. >> Oh my god. >> Call Jess. >> Listen, in all capital letters, this is something that I learned in my own case from Jess. If you're thinking of blowing the whistle, don't say a word until your attorney is sitting in the chair next to you. You don't want to be reactive. You want to be proactive, and you want to protect yourself. Have your lawyer sitting next to you. And remember, well, another thing I learned from Jess, the morning that I

[44:02] met Jess, um it It 4 days after my arrest, and Jess had said something very nice about me in the Washington Post. I was having trouble sleeping, as you might imagine. And so, a friend of mine called me at like 6:30 in the morning, and he said, "Hey, there's a lady in the post. She said this really nice thing about you, and she's an attorney. You should call her." And I called, 6:30 in the morning, and she answers the phone at her desk. And she says, "Oh my gosh, I didn't know how to get in touch with you. I'm so glad you called. Come into the office."

[44:32] I went into the office. We met for like, what, 2 hours? 2 and 1/2 hours. And on the way out, I said to her, "I want to really thank you for taking my case, because I know that you only represent whistleblowers, and I'm not a whistleblower." And you said, "You're the poster boy for whistleblowers." And I said, "I'm not. I'm just a normal guy who just said something." And it was Jess that taught me that motivation is irrelevant. Whistleblowing is the act of bringing to

[45:02] light any evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety. And that has been a mantra for me ever since. It's not up to the politico.com to decide if you're a whistleblower or not. Or the Washington Post, the New York Times. They all have their heads up their asses anyway, excuse my language. But this is something I've come to learn the hard way. You have to trust in your attorneys, and trust in WikiLeaks, cuz WikiLeaks is

[45:33] going to get the information out, and they're going to protect your identity. Otherwise, do exactly what your lawyer tells you to do. >> But come to your lawyer. Talk to a lawyer before you blow the whistle. Unfortunately, people come to me after they blew the whistle, and they're being retaliated against by the government, and it's crushing to have the full force of the entire executive branch come down on you. But by then, we're already behind the eight ball, um especially if you're uh and look, Trump just put another

[46:04] person under the counter-intelligence guy who said there was no reason we didn't have any intel that Iran had a nuclear bomb. Well, that guy is now under a leak investigation and I bet you dollars to donuts that it's under the Espionage Act and his world of hurt is only just beginning. So, again, I I encourage people, not just me, there are other whistleblower organizations out there, but and many of them are pro bono or low bono or completely free. And

[46:39] you know, if you're thinking about blowing the whistle, it's so dangerous out there. Now, it's even more dangerous than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago and I didn't think I that could be possible, but it is. Again, longer sentence, harsher sentence, sentences that involve torturous prison conditions, ones that will put you in a terrorist unit. I mean, crazy stuff. Like talk to a lawyer before you blow the whistle, not after. >> But isn't that I'm what you are saying,

[47:11] isn't that a deterrence for every potential whistleblower? I mean, or isn't the way Julian was treated, the long persecution of Julian? I mean, uh >> Well, I'll qualify that. National security and intelligence whistleblowers in particular. >> And I want to say the other thing about WikiLeaks, it's like what they believed in transparency was right across the board. They simply believed in transparency and what transparency is is when you come across a whistleblower to tell them that they need to go see a

[47:42] lawyer, right? Um, because I can't tell you how many times that journalists had meetings with myself and my and my friend Shawn. And we had meetings with the journalists and all that stuff and we had to be excruciatingly careful about what we said and didn't say. Um because it doesn't make any sense for any of us to have a whistleblower that ends up in prison. It didn't make any sense. Um it was the saddest thing ever was to see Assange, Julian Assange, rotting I mean, he was

[48:15] he was the textbook example of a political prisoner. And so maybe, you know, the next iteration of WikiLeaks that comes across, there's not a person. It's, you know, it's um it's a system. >> Well, I have to say this also this made me think um I've always said the war on whistleblowers is a backdoor war on journalists. And there should be no doubt that war is coming in the front door. In the US, we have journalists who are under subpoena in a leak

[48:46] investigation. We have a journalist whose house was just searched pursuant to a leak investigation because they they she published a story about someone a contractor who was blowing the whistle on the government. Journalists are more in the crosshairs than ever. So, it I think it would make sense for all these people who oh, WikiLeaks is not a journalist. That was a worst most ridiculous thing ever because WikiLeaks was being prosecuted for

[49:19] journalistic activity. It was being prosecuted for protecting a source, maintaining anonymity, using encryption, cultivating a source. These are all things journalists do every day and publishing classified information. Again, something national security and intel journalists do every day. So, that was such an artificial distinction and I felt like the mainstream media and alternative

[49:50] media didn't come on board in realizing that and saying like, oh yeah, I guess we should defend WikiLeaks until the very last moment. But that should have happened 10 years earlier and it didn't. >> [applause] >> Nevertheless, as somebody who has been inside a mainstream quite powerful media Der Spiegel in these times, it took me years, I think three to five years, that I could write a

[50:23] journalist or publisher. They wanted me to write an activist called Julian Assange an activist. And that that also was the case with Reporters sans frontières. They first in the beginning they said journalism like activities they called what WikiLeaks was doing. So it was a struggle also from people inside the media to to to accept that whistleblowers have to be protected, that they play important role

[50:54] in in the critical journalism. That was quite hard. It was and as you might know, I'm I'm a journalist since 50 years now. Um journalists are not very don't have that much courage most of them. So >> [laughter] >> the it is the it is you have to to deal with people who if there are some is a political constellation or if the owner of a newspaper is having this point of view, they see where they what

[51:26] they should do. So it's >> I realize I realize journal some journalists, some of them don't have the courage, but you sure as should not burn your source. Those journalists and I'm not going to say their name because again their lawyers will descend upon me because that has happened in in past. But a particular outlet and particular journalists particular outlet has been responsible for sending multiple whistleblowers to prison, and that is

[51:57] shameful. Shameful. And uh >> Well, what's what's crazy about I just remember this thing that went on in Germany for many years, and it was this whole thing, you know, >> [clears throat] >> uh you know, is what you know, is WikiLeaks or is Assange an activist or is he a journalist? And it was just like this kind of And you never ask the question is Murdoch an activist or a journalist, right? Like there's like never ever or Springer, right? There's never a question is Springer an active, you know, Springer as a publishing house activist. And that question was always

[52:27] reserved for WikiLeaks. And you had these like kind of conversations in the editorial rooms I've been in in my life that constantly went back and forth, you know, can you actually call him a journalist? And all I remember is actually like with Marcel, we were in this room with the other journalists, Julian is sitting there. We're all looking through the data, and we're saying, "Oh, look what I found. Look what I found." We were working together as journalists to analyze the Afghan war logs. That was an act of journalism.

[52:59] >> But, I think it's happened to you as well. I was called an activist because I was supporting WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and the campaign. And but then I I I used to answer, "If I am a journalist, and I don't defend freedom of press, I just lost it." So, and that's what we were doing basically as journalists. We were defending Julian because we we thought it is the right to publish certain things the government doesn't like.

[53:30] >> What were you accused of? What What kind of criticism did you get? >> They sent when I I did interviews with Julian in the embassy in London, they sent some kind of policeman from from the editorial staff that that that I don't fraternize too much or I don't know. It was ridiculous anyway. But but somehow Julian and the whole issue maybe because of the Americans were were behind it. In Germany people said oh very difficult

[54:00] with Julian Assange and so it it wasn't not a very clear understanding that defending freedom of press means defending WikiLeaks. Well >> The another thing I just wanted to mention up here this poor man here is the only one from Europe. We're all from you know pretty much um I mean this is like we a lot of times I hear it said that you know the US is doing this the US is doing that. But what what Jess was just talking about journalists being

[54:30] arrested it's happened in Australia. It's happened in the UK. So I mean while we can look at the US right now and we're doing really poorly we are not making friends. We suck right now let's be real okay. But what happens is it ripples throughout the world. And so like all of the stuff that we're saying here it applies to the western world. Um maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but it it it does and I'm sorry that a

[55:00] lot of it does come out of the US. I'm sorry. But um but we all need to start paying attention to these things. We all need to support you know journalism. We all need to support um whistleblowers. We all need to support operations like WikiLeaks and we all need to support I mean the other thing that's not been mentioned is the gross over classification of bazillions of documents and things that are just classified to all classification.

[55:30] It's utterly ridiculous. It's like when the US got their first computers they thought that three would be enough for the country. And then they thought, "No, that's not enough." And then they started printing documents because they could print documents, and there were like bazillions of documents in the military, and they were so overloaded with documents that they ended up having to buy computers so that they could get rid of all those documents. Well, imagine that whole problem like

[56:00] feedback loop happening in the spaces that the rest of the world isn't allowed to see. Cuz it's there. >> Yeah, over-classification continues to be a problem. The US has lost track of how much information it has classified because of the over-classification problem, and it continue I mean, it's only going to continue to get worse. And the process to actually I mean, if the government can technically

[56:32] declassify a document, it rarely decides that it needs to do that. It's people fighting through the Freedom of Information Act and other tools to And so, thank you to all the journalists out there who've been fighting to get stuff declassified, but there's so much stuff that's needlessly classified, and you're not allowed to classify. You can classify to hide sources and methods or conceal undercover identities, but you

[57:02] can't do it, as Lisa said, because the leaks might embarrass you. And a lot of the stuff that's being classified is stuff that Luckily, it gets out there through leaks. Thanks to leaks. And one of the biggest leakers right now, one of my favorite leakers right now, is Pete Hoekstra. That dude has leaked more stuff than than many whistleblowers. And active war plans. I I to the extent Julian was accused of, you know, leaking stuff

[57:33] about war plans, holy cow. He leaks stuff about an air war actually Yeah, on signal with the journalist in the loop. So, there you go. I mean, and and that wasn't an isolated incident. I mean, Hick Seth has and and Tulsi Gabbard both have been accused of leak leaky problems. So, >> And neither Hick Seth nor the journalist got locked in an embassy. Neither Hick

[58:05] Seth nor the journalist got like completely prosecuted. Prosecuted. Nothing like that happened. So, >> Yeah, Hick Seth is well, he's under investigation supposedly by the Inspector General, but that will take years and go nowhere and especially because >> them. >> Oh, yeah, they did fire that one. True, they fired most of the Inspectors General, but that's why the fourth estate and the press is more important than ever right now because the press and a few good judges are the only bullwark right now

[58:38] of democracy. >> But but let's be more specific about that, too. It's mostly the independent press. You know, there's a wonderful journalist, Jason Leopold, at Bloomberg, investigative journalist. George W. Bush's Pentagon spokesman called him a FOIA terrorist because he has filed more Freedom of Information Act requests than any other person on the planet Earth. And he told me once that he was bored one year over Christmas break, and so he dashed off a Freedom of Information Act

[59:10] request to the CIA for every communication between the CIA and an American journalist for the previous year. Period. >> [laughter] >> And what he does, he still does it now that he's with Bloomberg, he has a lawyer friend um who sues the CIA. The The law is clear. The CIA has 60 days to respond. They never You'll be lucky if they respond in 60 years. So, he sues on day 61, and he always wins because the law is clear, and the CIA always has to pay his legal fees

[59:41] because he won. So, he does this over Christmas, and he gets thousands of pages of documents, but they include a couple of golden nuggets. One of them showed that Ken Dilanian, who is the chief national security correspondent for NBC News and what was called MSNBC, was writing his articles and sending them to the CIA for clearance before sending them to his own

[1:00:11] editors. Is this okay with you guys if I say this? Cuz if it's not okay, I'll just take it out. So, just let me know. Another thing that he found was there was a young, hungry, independent journalist who actually found a scoop and wrote to the CIA and said, "I'm going to print this tomorrow. Do you have any comment?" And they responded, and they said, "So help us God, if you print this tomorrow, you will never be invited to the CIA Christmas party ever again." >> [laughter] >> That's what they said. And we will never

[1:00:44] give you any background briefings. And he killed his own story. But we would never know any of this if it wasn't for good, independent journalists, fearless journalists, like Jason Leopold, and journalists that rely on WikiLeaks for some of those leads that they can then dig into cuz the mainstream media is not going to do it. It's not going to be in the New York Times, in the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, or CNN, or Fox, or anywhere else. It's just not going to appear.

[1:01:17] >> Yeah, but I mean, you also have to remember that the initial WikiLeaks, you know, material from 2010 did run in the New York Times, did run in the Guardian, and did run in Spiegel, right? I mean, that was the I mean um >> Le Monde and El País as well. Le Monde and El País as well later. >> I mean, it you know, that it did happen. >> I don't know we are not we are not all journalists here, but if you talk about this kind of tactical

[1:01:47] relationships to what secret service I can remember that Edward Snowden in the midst of a really difficult production asked us to confront the GCHQ that with the facts in our story and we we thought it couldn't be. We always could could do it without confrontation, but he insisted on that, but it it went nowhere because these secret services they want to ask what's the

[1:02:18] color of the hair of your colleague who's working with or what's the size of her shoes and stuff. They they ask you a lot they want to know everything and they won't tell you nothing. They just give you this statement which you can put on your wall and take every time you call the secret service. So, it is it can be tactical. It can make sense to talk with secret service people. I just had a good laugh with them sometimes and so, but but this is journalist talk. The I would I would get it back into the

[1:02:50] political realm and and the and the let's about WikiLeaks. When we look in the future and we all wish I think that WikiLeaks would be reborn. I mean, it doesn't really exist as as if you look at the website. There there hasn't been things published. So, we all hope that it will be reborn. I'm asking myself after Daniel Ellsberg said, "I've been waiting for Chelsea

[1:03:20] Manning for Was it 40 or 50 years?" We don't have that many whistleblowers. I mean, don't you know what happened to a whistleblower? Just yourself. I mean, it is a risky job. And I mean, there are organizations luckily and and attorneys and lawyers who support whistleblowers. But I don't know how we can create more whistleblowers. I mean, politically it would make a lot of sense, but how to do it? >> I think you need to have better whistleblower protection and Chip

[1:03:52] Gibbons, who was on a panel earlier, has been working on an act to reform the Espionage Act in a way that would protect whistleblowers, protect journalists, create a public interest defense, so you could actually say in court at trial that I did this. I blew the whistle because what I saw was wrong and people were dying because of it. Right now, you can't make that argument until sentencing after you've

[1:04:22] already been found guilty. >> But if you murder somebody, but if you kill somebody in cold blood standing outside the building, you can make that >> Sure. >> argument at trial and twice on Sundays. >> And to make it even more difficult, if you plead guilty to a lesser charge, you are forbidden by law from ever launching an appeal or filing a Freedom of Information Act request on your own case. Can't do it. >> Yeah, and then you come out and you have

[1:04:52] a criminal record and it complicates your life for the rest of your life as John knows, as Daniel knows. Um Yeah, it's a terrible situation. I mean, I >> I mean, whistleblower is an American word and uh But it looks like what sounds like what you are saying telling tonight that if the situation of whistleblowers in the United States is much worse than than many other countries, is that true?

[1:05:23] >> Don't forget Katherine Gun. Look what happened to her in the UK. And she contemporaneously said, "Hey, this is what's happening with the war in Iraq." Before the war started. And it went nowhere, but her life is forever changed. >> I think it's gotten worse. The situation for whistleblowers, as bad as it was, um when Obama yeah, under Obama, the the transparency president, um

[1:05:54] by you know, indicting Tom Drake, I mean, it just set off what I I thought it was a one-off, but it unfortunately has become completely normalized at this point. Like I said, I mean, the news yesterday that another guy is being investigated by the FBI for a leak, because he said something that was dissent, not because he Well, I think they're saying he revealed classified information, but they always say that. And a number of times that turns out not to be true.

[1:06:24] Um this is a it is normalized to use the Espionage Act. And so, unless we do something like Chip is working on and repeal the Espionage Act, I don't see an end to this. I mean, the government has found a loaded gun, a very useful tool that it can use. And the defendant is not allowed to mount a defense. And the proceeding will take place largely in secret because of classification. Even if stuff was unclassified, in Thomas

[1:06:57] Drake's case, all the information at issue turned out to be completely unclassified. And yet all of these proceedings were taking place in a classified information procedure act hearings in a skiff in a Kafkaesque secret locked down situation. Same with Daniel Hale, my own client. Even in an open court session, I, his lawyer, one of his lawyers, was shut out even though they were not

[1:07:29] discussing classified. Uh is that constitutionally challengeable? Maybe, but by then the horse has left the barn and the client's already in prison. You know, I so we we really need to rein in computer fraud abuse act, the Espionage Act, and these laws that are being used largely against whistleblowers and journalists and not against people who are actually committing what we think of as saboteur

[1:08:01] or spy conduct. >> So, before we Yeah, take questions of the audience, maybe a last question from me and for all of you. That if you can if you could look into the future, what would you wish WikiLeaks would be in let's say [clears throat] 10 years time? >> I would love to see it active again, but I also, given what WikiLeaks went

[1:08:32] through, which was literally uh this campaign by one of the the most powerful countries in the world, including attempts and designs to assassinate Julian Assange, I get why they're not reconstituting. I think we're in a very chilling environment and I I don't know if I as much as I would like to see WikiLeaks or a similar type organization exist, I don't think it would. I think it would the government would quickly

[1:09:04] label it a terrorist, label its editor-in-chief or publisher a terrorist, get them blacklisted, financial blockades, all the stuff that happened to WikiLeaks, but now on steroids because I don't recognize the country I was born in, uh the US. >> Yeah, I I have to agree. The the only way that not just the American people, but any

[1:09:34] people are going to know about government malfeasance is through WikiLeaks. We need a robust, healthy, and well-funded WikiLeaks. It's the only way to to keep the honest people honest. >> I just don't know if that can happen given this climate. I mean, it would have to be run out of another country for sure. And and anyone from the US who's cooperating with it, as we have seen, including people who were not part of WikiLeaks. Um

[1:10:07] Again, it's an incredibly dangerous environment in which reporters, and not just sources now, but reporters and even people who were just war protesters have been put in jail at a an astonishing number. >> That's Yeah, that's true in the US. What I would like to see, if again, if I were queen for a day, is that journalism such as what WikiLeaks did be legal. Period.

[1:10:37] I would like to call what WikiLeaks did journalism. And be done with all of this BS where power just crushes people's voice. Period. Cuz I I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but I am incredibly sick of having to do what Daniel Hale said in the national bird. He said I've always walking around and I got to watch my words. I always got to watch my words. And it's like I know all of us who came

[1:11:08] here from the US are thinking what are we going to do at the airport? How are we going to get in? How much are we going to be searched? I am sick of that So like, you know, >> My mantra is you cannot stop me from reentering my own country. And that's the end of the conversation. Maybe you sit there for 45 minutes. One time I sat there for 4 hours, but every single time they would say, "Let me see your phone. Let me see your laptop." I would say, "Not without a warrant and you can't stop me from reentering my own

[1:11:41] country." And then finally they say, "Just get the hell out of here." >> [laughter] >> Well, that problem was just solved. >> I mean, just as a journalist, I would love to get leaks and material and documents and publish them. Yeah. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Now, please any questions to all of us anybody here on stage?

[1:12:13] I can't see from here. >> Yes, there's a lady in the middle here. >> There's a lady on the right here. >> Oh, okay then. Okay. >> Thanks. It's been fascinating to see to see the world in real life rather than on the little screen. I have a question. Some things have changed since since 2010. In 2010, we needed collateral murder or

[1:12:44] the release of the Abu Ghraib cable which helped remove immunity from um from American soldiers in Iraq. To send >> tortured Muslim men tortured at Guantanamo.

[1:13:27] WikiLeaks which were courage, ingenuity, purpose, public-spiritedness. Where are you seeing one or more of those today? >> That's easy. Wherever the US is oppressing a country. That's I mean, Palestine, those journalists facing life and death getting the truth out there. The people who are filming inside of, you know, the

[1:13:58] camps that are in the US holding people who were illegally in the country, which, you know, um everyday citizens who get online and they're all over in the streets blowing whistles and following ICE. That's where we see it. What we don't see is more people standing up for them because we have to fight back in numbers. If we don't have those numbers, we lose before we ever start. And so, you know, for

[1:14:30] people who free Palestine, man. Free Palestine, right? And what about the genocide that's going on in Africa? Like, um >> [applause] >> what about, you know, I mean, there are so many countries that are being oppressed and there are so many people who are trying to stand up with their very lives. Like um my heart goes out to them cuz they don't have the privilege that I have as a white woman in this world.

[1:15:01] >> [applause] >> Yeah, who was next? Uh maybe in the middle. Yep. Yeah, thank you very much for this talk. Um it was really inspiring, but unfortunately tomorrow we will wake up and we will have our shitty German journal again. So, I'm talking about all the journal that we know. I mean, do not have to cite them one by one, but even looking outside of the German

[1:15:33] countries, we will have Italian journals or in France or in Spain. And to me, to reconnect to what she was saying, uh it's sad to say, but honestly, um it's difficult to see the impact of WikiLeaks now in our journal. And I'm talking about the mainstream journal. So, you were saying before that we need more whistleblower. And some of you say that we need more uh journalists with courage. Um

[1:16:03] I think that the main problem is publisher, especially talking in this country. And maybe some of the journalists in in the panel can tell us something more about it. But my question is, how do you think this problem can be solved? So, um we have a platform, we have whistleblower, we have journalists. Actually, there are journalists with some courage, but those journalists, they do not get a job. It's really difficult for a for good journalists to to find job. And and so, this is why uh we have

[1:16:33] publisher that they have really crappy journalists, especially when it is about I mean, international politics. I'm at Germany right now, but this this discussion can be extended outside of the country. So, my question is, how can be the publisher landscape be changed in your opinion? Thanks. >> Uh, John, would you I mean, you are a journalist. I'm also a journalist. Would you like to say something about the publisher?

[1:17:05] Because my impression is different. I think at the moment, if you have got some documents about um, US war crimes, they would be published here easily. Because I mean, the relationship between Germany and the US government, the current US government, so strained that no German publisher would It's something different with Gaza. Gaza is a complete other story which has to do with the German past. But, American documents, there is no publisher who is

[1:17:36] who's not giving a good journalist a job or who who would say, "We don't We don't work with these documents." I I don't see that like that. But, John, >> No, no, no. I That's I I agree. I mean, I think I think right now [clears throat] the atmosphere is very much, I mean, I think one of the issues that you see in German journal- journalism is that counter narrative, which is the kind of the traditional, you know, field of investigative journalism, that kind of >> [clears throat]

[1:18:07] >> takes current affairs and actually looks that at at the narrative from a different point of view. In Germany, a lot of editorial staffs are really worried that that's the realm of the AfD, right? And if you come with the counter narrative proposal, right? They don't distinguish between, I don't know if you want to say left-wing or kind of, you know, critical counter narrative and AfD counter narrative. And you see these editorial

[1:18:37] people like very confused and worried about oh my god, where you know, is this going to help Russia? Is this going to help the AFD? Is this going to be and so they stay very centrist because they're worried about kind of the broader implications of it. That's how I That's what I experienced. Put it that way. >> [applause] >> There was someone in the first panel asking or making this comment about the

[1:19:08] fact that the the internet is is somewhat of a cesspool now and that digital communications are are really problematic that we're not necessarily going to be able to operate with another kind of WikiLeaks. I hope that there are ways, but in case that we need to look at other things, I think it's important maybe to think about for this whole conference maybe not to be so media and data-centric and to think about ways of resistance in other forms because we have enough information to know we're being ruled by corrupt

[1:19:40] bastards and people who are doing war crimes and things like that. Uh recently Andrew Feinstein was here to speak on a panel and he was speaking about the multiple factors that brought down apartheid in South Africa. And so the other really important key things are, you know, popular uprising, divestment from from uh you know, in academics with with military industrial complex things and

[1:20:10] uh other factors. Uh but this multiplicity of things that that happen in a confluence are the things that can topple the power, but if we just keep looking for more information, we're just going to drown in it. So, I'm wondering you know, is was the internet anyway in some sense, you know, always military industrial complex and we were not really looking in the right direction to liberate ourselves through the technological tools of the master. What do you think about that angle?

[1:20:40] >> So, I have something very critical to say. Get off Google. Cuz like all the people that are doing all these other things that are brilliant, they are communicating with Gmail. So, like I mean, to come back to the wish for WikiLeaks and the folks around WikiLeaks, please, create another Google so that activists can communicate. There's been several people who have tried to put that forward and tried to do that, and they've all failed. There's been a lot of grift in that arena. Um but we need

[1:21:12] something else because the problems are now global. So, we're going to need to be communicating with the technology, and all technology is dual use. And has it always been a tool? Well, yeah. The US military pretty much invented it. The CIA got on board, you know, like So, has it always been military? Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, so have Jeeps. And so have many things that we use. So, um we can use this effectively. We can use

[1:21:44] technology effectively. But um we need to find alternatives like uh Meredith Whittaker's trying to come up with a new business model for Signal. And what she's doing is working. ProtonMail is trying to have a new business model, but as some of you may or may not know, because of um intergovernmental agreements, ProtonMail was compromised by an intergovernmental agreement where they were able to get the information of who was communicating

[1:22:15] with who. So, I mean, we need to find other alternatives to be able to communicate to let these things flourish. >> But I agree, you need multiple tools in your toolkit and they should go beyond just communication. We need boots on the ground in the street, marching protests, go go to Parliament, go to your legislatures, and lobby for things like Chip has been championing championing trying to end

[1:22:46] the Espionage Act. Take a multi-pronged approach, play to your strength, whatever your strength is. If you're a lawyer, if you're a journalist, whatever your strength is, use that to fight this. But also, people in the streets matter, organized protests matter. That was an essential, and Stella talked about this, the protests, the organic protests that sprung up all over, not only the US, but the world in support of Assange, and

[1:23:18] everyone did it kind of differently, but you still had all of these different arenas of protest, and it really was horseshoe politics, because you had like very liberal people, very conservative people, libertarians. I mean, you just had like people of all political stripes realizing that what was affecting and what was coming down on WikiLeaks could easily rain down on them, and it took that kind of continued, persistent, vocal

[1:23:49] solidarity, and it was a grind over many, many, many years. I mean, again, the persecution of Julian was not just Belmarsh, and it started so much longer before, and I think a lot of don't quite realize how much of Julian's life was spent in some kind of confinement situation before Belmarsh and before the embassy. I I

[1:24:20] how much of his own life had been sacrificed for transparency. So, we need to carry that forward. >> [applause] >> I mean, and let's also not forget that there was a lot of people who went to jail who who were not named Julian Assange having to do with WikiLeaks, right? You know, Ola Bini, right? You know, you know, Shalta as you mentioned. I think Jeremy Hammond is and and also the people who basically refused to give states evidence against WikiLeaks who

[1:24:53] basically also got criminalized and had criminal prosecution, you know, you know, prosecutions or threatening letters or, you know, whatever and basically were forced to live outside of the United States. So, I mean, it it Sure, the focus of course was on Assange and and of course it was right to to get him out, but I'm saying it's amazing actually how many people were actually hit with that state repression. >> [applause]

[1:25:25] >> Yes, last question or questions uh back there. All the way back. >> Yes, thank you very much. I would like to follow up on the question of what is there left to whistle-blow if there is a genocide that is live-streamed and my question is there Is there anything left to scandalize? Um I hate to be fatalistic, but I I this

[1:25:57] you know, it crossed my mind and I want I want to know if you So, we can scandalize if there is a desire for truth, right? If there is something that we can say that is a scandal. So, we see now with the war on Iran and on Lebanon, we don't know we said one day it is this reason, the other day it is that reason. Would there be in the current war any tipping point case, any question that we could scandalize to actually say, yes, this would be a problem for them to

[1:26:28] continue the war? Because they're quite vocal that they're doing these wars just for this. Uh so, they're breaking the law. Yes, we're breaking the law. Is there So, they're they're doing a actually criminal things and they're admitting it themselves. So, my question is really, yes, is there is there anything we can scandalize when Trump says, the only law is my moral judgment? >> Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah, okay.

[1:26:59] >> [laughter] >> No, I mean to the extent this war is meant to distract and unfortunately seems to have successfully distracted Americans from focusing on the Epstein scandal, which potentially, if we actually had access to the documents and if we ever needed WikiLeaks or an organization like WikiLeaks, it would be for the Epstein files. I mean, who wouldn't want to see that? All of it. Not the redacted version, not

[1:27:32] the sanitized version, not the version that's protecting, in Trump's words, all my friends. That would be an amazing thing to leak. Remember when WikiLeaks created the list of documents that it wanted to be leaked? That was important. I could come up with a list of those documents, but again, I don't see the public clamoring or making the connection that that is precisely the kind of mass trove of data

[1:28:04] that WikiLeaks was able to get out there in in pristine form, in the form in which it was written without government redactions and and blank pages. >> I I just want to respond directly to you. I I actually think um what definitely is you know would be a scan you know would be journalistically really relevant right now would be secret treaties between Gulf states and the United States and Israel. I think

[1:28:36] uh internal documents from Egypt right now about the agreements about the border uh with Gaza. I agreements between Israel and Egypt would be highly interesting right now. I mean I think um the uh material about um the you know anti-missile defense systems and how they've been moved around

[1:29:06] um uh I think also like you know we're in Germany right now. What what did Germany know about the war before? What is Germany doing actually right now because we have a you know a history of situations where Germany has once you know has said publicly for example with the Iraq war we're not going to participate and in the end they ended up doing targeting for the United States military in Baghdad, right? I mean even though the public you know the public population wasn't aware of that. Um so I

[1:29:37] think there's a lot of stuff right now that would be really interesting to hear about. Also any note taking between conversations of Netanyahu and Trump. I mean that stuff's out there. It would be great to get and I actually think it would uh scandalize people. >> There are also people online with questions. >> Yeah there there was one one here at first row and then this one and then we go to the

[1:30:09] online questions. >> intelligence agencies themselves have largely been shifting their center of gravity towards open source intelligence. When WikiLeaks released the Kissinger cables, there was you know, a lot of confusion from the press of oh, do you just do open information now or you done with leaks? You know, the the point was made no, the point is the analysis like what you learn, not you know, the methodology. And so, I think obviously techniques for analyzing broader sources of information. There was reference to live stream genocide. You can find this

[1:30:40] all on Instagram. Like what do you view as the role of evolving into the world of, you know, broader forms of intelligence and let's say open source intelligence of of WikiLeaks is a center of gravity now. >> Now, that's basically the question to WikiLeaks which is sitting in the first row, not very far from you. And and just let let me make one point. I think we just touched certain questions. What's going to be with WikiLeaks? Will there

[1:31:12] be a new organization and so on? And I hope very much that we going to discuss these questions tomorrow and the next days because I think I've never met such a intense I mean, such a big number of former WikiLeaks, still WikiLeaks, friends of WikiLeaks, supporting WikiLeaks, lawyers and so on. So, we we going to talk about that in

[1:31:43] the next days. The uh To to your question, to be to be honest, you know, that's >> your question. I think that all of us need to learn a little bit of open source intelligence so that we can dig through the like the plethora of garbage that's now online and find, you know, the actual truth of things. Um and the other thing is um it would be great if there was a repository like WikiLeaks for open-source information, for any information because, you know, it's just

[1:32:13] like with whistleblowing, the messenger doesn't matter, it's the message. And so in this case, the method doesn't matter, it's still the message that's important and how we get it out there to the public. And how we, you know, make it in a way that the that the general public eat in bite-size chunks so the general public can understand it. I don't know, did that work? >> So there was one last question online, I think. Over there and then we go.

[1:32:44] >> Hi, just building up on what was said till now. Uh we had the WikiLeaks coming out, all the cables, and but the effect the net effect that is that then Trump got elected. I think the fact that it didn't really change the mind of people that when we are whistleblowing, coming out with with with scoops, we see that that doesn't affect the public opinion. I mean, we have a problem on this. Now, to the point that the criminals are making

[1:33:16] selfies while they committed a genocide. And that makes our job, I'm a I'm a reporter myself, very difficult. You know, what can I say more? When they kill how many are there now? I don't know. 50,000? Only it doesn't matter anymore, the number of kids of children killed in Gaza. When they carpet bomb Tehran without any any reason, how can we do more than this? If people doesn't rise out of these elements that are very

[1:33:46] clear to everybody, what can really make them rise up? This is my my my fear that we are lobotomized, that the people doesn't really have the the capacity of react to such they flooded us as Bannon like to say, you know, they flooded us with so much that we don't even realize what is going on. This is why we becomes, I'm sorry, irrelevant. Sometimes to >> What's your question? >> So, the question is is maybe is the political is a political

[1:34:17] problem. So, it's not just a journalistic problem, but there is a political you say you were saying before that there is not we we are trying not to be political, but maybe here is a big political problem that is cannot be resolved by only by journalism. >> I mean Nothing can be solved only by journalists. I'm I'm very sure as a journalist. But but I have the impression that war creates a lot of horrible things, but it also creates whistleblowers. If I look

[1:34:49] at the work of the +972, which is Israeli internet platform, they had quite a few really interesting the whistleblowers from from the IDF. So, so I think we going to see and specially about this revolution of introducing AI in into war modern warfare. The I mean Some [clears throat] stuff was already coming out and I I think we going to

[1:35:20] hear and and read and see from this kind of information that quite frequently in the in the future. So, in that way I'm optimistic. What that causes or what political impact that has on societies on the political actions or not non action is another question. >> I'm working with the AI whistleblower initiative on whistleblower protections for AI. And if you haven't noticed, there have been a huge number of whistleblowers in AI, which is sort of

[1:35:51] the new frontier to me it's what cybersecurity was 10 years ago, 20 years ago and now AI. But the people who've been blowing the whistle on AI are a lot of people at the top. And they've been doing so by resigning and resigning loudly and talking about problems with the technology. So that gives me a just to end this with like a little tiny glimmer of hope.

[1:36:22] >> All right. Now >> [clears throat] >> questions from the in famous in the internet. Who has them? >> Yes. How can military whistleblowing continue to feel impactful in a climate of engineered distrust, learned helplessness, and the normalization of atrocities? Case in point, the genocide in Gaza. And how do we convince potential whistleblowers and the public that people are actually held accountable as a result of leaks?

[1:36:56] >> [laughter] >> I mean I don't know that there's an answer to that question anywhere, but I do know that something that Edward Snowden said rings true to me and it's that we need to to change the incentivizations that we have. And like one of the things that we're doing with this political quagmire that we're in is that we're not able to work together and sometimes even from the polar left and the polar right,

[1:37:26] I mean polar opposite people, it's something that was said at the first panel about it being a really long process and finding ways that we can work together on a single goal. And I think a lot of you know, I mean and and and it's really hard because you know, it's like people are not eat so I don't know if it's self-censoring or censored that we're not even, you know, shall I say allowed to say that that was a genocide?

[1:37:58] It was a flipping damn genocide. And it's still going on. And so I think one of the other things that we need to do is just shout that stuff from the rooftops. I don't know how to break, you know, this this apathy, this hopelessness, this I mean it's like this is what trauma does. And right now we have entire nations in trauma. >> [applause]

[1:38:33] >> Thanks. Are there any more questions? I will say it's last question. It's not up there. Oh, sorry. It's the lights are Could Could somebody get a mic up there? We completely neglected the upper floor. >> Okay, thank you for your remarkable work as whistleblowers, first of all. I wanted just to bring the attention to

[1:39:03] like what we just talked like what is the point of a whistleblower if then we don't do anything with it? Like in the sense for example like setting the tone of like it seems like the tone that was set in this conversation was very reformist in the sense of like how can we for example lay hope in the US government to reform and act like a the Espionage Act and then be like, okay, the US government will protect now whistleblowers. Like or for example now

[1:39:35] when like the the question previous to the last question it asked like when we talk about activism, when we talk about like how like we should also focus on like what is actually like the counter like the parallel channel to the institutional channel because it cannot just be journalism for the sake of journalism and it cannot just be um it cannot just um we cannot just hope it like the perpetrator becomes the

[1:40:06] protector. So, how do you envision this? Do you think that like WikiLeaks have like more of the purpose of like just blowing the whistle or in order to make it congruous with the fight and the struggle in the world actually, you should have like a political meaning in the sense of connecting with this activism. Thank you. >> I mean, there was another trajectory for WikiLeaks after 2010

[1:40:39] and that was that it would become an NGO that would get American government financing and basically became become a lame operation, right? I mean, that was really that was one possibility that WikiLeaks could have gone in and you know, um and I think it's a real credit to Assange actually himself that that WikiLeaks remains an organization that openly violated

[1:41:09] um you know, I mean, didn't ask for permission to do anything and didn't wait for a law to get changed. It was actually uh as in its concept outside of that and was not begging for permission to do things and I think that's why it stayed such a strong organization and didn't become yet another NGO. >> [applause] >> Well,

[1:41:40] >> It was all It was a journalistic organization, too. I mean, I still think that that there are journalists that need to step up and and freaking tell the truth and use the word fascism. Use the word Words matter. Like use the word genocide. Use the words, you know, slaughter. Use the words imperialism. Use I mean, words matter and as long as we keep like relegating war to business-like terms and relegating like some of the worst things that humankind does into like

[1:42:12] organizational transactional terms, then we're just going to remain in this kind of lethargy. >> [applause] >> All right. Thank you, Lisa. Thank you, John. Thank you, Jesselyn. Thank you, John. I think you were quite you were great a panel here because I mean, it's it's a sometimes depressing and very serious

[1:42:43] topic we were talking about, but sometimes I could even have a good laugh about certain anecdotes and about certain remarks. I hope you will come back tomorrow because the I mean, all these questions about WikiLeaks should be discussed by people who are closer to WikiLeaks or who are WikiLeaks and I'm looking forward to listen to these these discussions tomorrow. Have a good evening.

[1:43:14] Have a >> [applause] [applause] >> And you're actually we can actually continue [music] talking if you want. We We all go eat and drink at the restaurant of Hau, which is at Hallesches Ufer 34, at the Parallelstraße, the parallel street, so you can we can still continue there. Thank you. You're invited.

[1:43:54] >> [music] [music]
