Run time: 09:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nufRsWdOONY
Posted on YouTube: February 11, 2011
By YouTube Member: MidweekPolitics
Views on YouTube: 461
Posted on DU: February 13, 2011
By DU Member: celtics23
Views on DU: 732 |
# From: www.davidpakman.com | Subscription: www.davidpakman.com/membership | YouTube: www.youtube.com/midweekpolitics
David: Thrilled to welcome back to the show Eric O'Neill, former FBI agent and also currently at the Georgetown Group, an investigative services firm, also on Twitter now, @EOneill. Hey, Eric, thanks for joining us.
Eric O'Neill: Hey, David. It's great to be back on your show.
David: So we, last time you were on, we talked about the real-life version of the movie "Breach" where you were played by Ryan Philippe and kind of outlining the story of Robert Hanson and that entire ordeal. Now I want to talk a little bit about Wikileaks. And we've talked to former military people on Wikileaks, we've talked to journalists, we've seen how journalists are covering it. I'm curious to hear from you, if you were in the SEI, how might Wikileaks affect your day-to-day work? Let's just get into it.
O'Neill: Right. You know, it's... I come from the side of it's a problem. It's a big problem. Now, look, I'm also an attorney, and I believe in freedom of speech, and I also believe in transparency of government. But let's be honest, here. The U.S. people should have the right to criticize their government, that's one of the most wonderful things about being a United States citizen, and not be penalized for it, but what's happening with Wikileaks is akin to shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. It can cause more good than... more harm than good, and it probably has done so.
As a former intelligence operative doing counterintelligence work and counterterrorism work, which more often than you think might go hand-in-hand, some of this information can be incredibly damaging, especially to people who are in the field, like I was, pursuing intelligence, and suddenly having the rug pulled out from under them because somebody thought it would be cute to send information to someone who's going to publish it for the whole world to see.
So if our government wants to talk about attacking Iran, they should. They should plan for any eventuality possible, even if they have no interest in ever doing it, and I certainly hope they don't. But that has to be put on paper, because someone has to analyze it, and if it's put on paper and somebody sitting in the White House decides that they are going to make sure that the whole world knows about this and sends it to Wikileaks, they cause a problem, because now what's happened is that is not looked at in the spirit it was drafted, it's looked at in whatever spirit the person who reads it decides to look at it, which quite possibly will be the wrong one.
David: It's a concerning hypothetical, but right now, one of the biggest smears that I'm seeing, we could call it a smear, a misconception about Wikileaks, is that what we actually have read has put even a single life... has resulted in even a single death. So the hypothetical you bring up, I agree with you, it's a concern. That would not be good. I can understand why discretion and privacy is needed. Not everything should be out in the open. But we actually haven't seen this doomsday scenario. We hear people's lives are at risk and people are dying because of Wikileaks; there's not a single instance, at least that I have found. Are there any you can point to?
O'Neill: There aren't any I can point to, but part of it is I haven't sat there going through millions of pages of documents that have been provided. It's been done, and you're right, they haven't been able to point to, other than things that would embarrass the administration, or if you're talking about diplomats who are asked to look for personal information for individuals in foreign countries, well, there's a problem, because it's going to make it harder for them to do that. But let's think of what could happen in the future.
David: Yeah.
O'Neill: If Wikileaks is allowed to provide a format that it's currently engaged in, people could think it's OK to start dumping information, and suddenly, you've got classified information that points to people who are operating perhaps in foreign countries that might not play a more distinguished spy game. Those people's covers are peeled back, and they're executed or turned around and lost or our country becomes gravely embarrassed by it.
David: Well, let's think about that, because I think that there's some confusion, and I want to... at least I would like to make the distinction, some say Wikileaks and Julian Assange have done something illegal. Then the other side is what you mentioned, Bradley Manning allegedly is the one who provided these documents, and we don't want people to think that they can just provide these documents with no repercussions. Bradley Manning is not in good conditions right now. I don't think anybody thinks the leaker is actually going to be free of repercussions. But what we're seeing is confusion about did Julian Assange do anything illegal, did Wikileaks do anything illegal? And we have to make the distinction, because there's no evidence that they did.
O'Neill: Well, I mean, if you just look at Assange and Wikileaks, and you know, maybe this is a little tongue-in-cheek, but if you really look at it from the top level, it reads like a Bond movie. I mean, you've got this secret facility, well, not so secret, but that's in a former nuclear bunker under the streets of Stockholm with this ultra-high technology, and the bad guy there, the villain, in this hypothetical Bond movie is Assange. He is encouraging people to spy. He's encouraging people like the alleged Private First Class in the Army to grab confidential and secret documents and dump them on his server so he can provide them to the world. Now, that person who provided those documents is a spy, has committed espionage against the United States, and if they can prove it, he's in a hell of a lot of trouble. So yeah, it's not, you know, Assange has encouraged...
David: Here's the problem I see with that argument, which is if you're saying that by Wikileaks's mere existence, others are being encouraged to break the law, provide documents that are-- that were stolen or illegally obtained, this is the same argument that is being completely shut down that Glenn Beck, for example, just for picking somebody, by targeting someone, by making it clear that there is a venue for targeting a certain person, is then responsible if someone goes out and shoots them. Byron Williams comes to mind. It's being rejected that there's any legal responsibility there, so along the same lines, by Wikileaks existing, people are being encouraged to break the law and therefore, Wikileaks is guilty of something? I don't think it makes sense.
O'Neill: I never said guilty.
David: OK.
O'Neill: I don't think that they're guilty. And one of the most frustrating things for the U.S. government and the French government and a number of governments is how do you go against them-- how do you go after them legally? And I think what's happened, a knee-jerk reaction, has not been to go against Wikileaks as an entity but against Assange himself, with the different criminal charges against him. Here, I'm not seeing this as a problem... it is a problem, a legal problem, to find something to pin on them, but they haven't been able to, so it's more of a problem, a policy problem for the United States. Can we allow something like this to exist, because it's easy to spy. And one of the most difficult aspects of counterintelligence is keeping people from spying and finding out who the spies are. I'd rather just not have that outlet for people to decide this is not only something I'm going to do because I like to make money so I'm selling out to Russia, like Robert Hanson, but this is something I'm doing because I believe that politically and philosophically, this information should be out.
David: I think it's a hard case to make, because if Wikileaks didn't exist, people who have an incentive and the idea that they want to take documents and make them public, maybe for the fame, maybe because they think it's for the betterment of the world or whatever, they'll find avenues. There's plenty of media outlets. But I see your point on that. I want to get back to the FBI specifically.
O'Neill: Sure.
David: Can you point out or tell me at least, you know, to tell me your thoughts on, is there an instance, has there been a cable you've seen that you can point to or a type of cable that if you were still an active FBI operative would literally on the ground make life more difficult for you?
O'Neill: As an FBI operative doing what I did, I can't think of anything directly related. Now, as a counterterrorism operative, what I can say is that there have been cables about our supporting or not supporting different governments against some terrorist activities. Now, what that can do when that gets out is it really riles people up, and that means that more people are likely than not to decide that they're going to commit terrorist attacks. There is always a knee-jerk reaction with those things. That makes the counterterrorism agent working in the United States' job a little more difficult. Our heads have to be up and our eyes have to be up a little bit more, and we need to worry.
David: Could the argument be made that maybe it should've been more difficult for Bradley Manning to access these documents?
O'Neill: Absolutely. I mean, that's where you have to start. I mean, it's one thing to say that we should have Wikileaks shut down just because of the sort of documents they're getting in. It makes it easier, but there is no reason that that individual should've had access to those documents if he was of the state of mind that he was, and that is a problem in counterintelligence that we've always had in our country and we're always striving to correct.
David: All right. Eric O'Neill, former FBI operative, currently of the Georgetown Group, an investigative services firm. Follow him on Twitter, www.Twitter.com/EOneill. Great to talk to you, Eric. Thanks for coming on.
O'Neill: Thanks, David, and it's always great to be on your show.
Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www.DavidPakman.com.
Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham and www.Subscriptorium.com. For transcripts, translations, captions, and subtitles, or for more information, visit www.Subscriptorium.com, or contact Alex at subscriptorium@gmail.com.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(613 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
