SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
reality winner
Daniel Ellsberg and the Courage Contagion
His life and legacy are reminders that individual acts of moral courage depend on examples set by others, and they have the potential to spark more, far into the future.
Jun 20, 2023
In 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg arrived at a federal court in Boston, a journalist asked if he was concerned about the prospect of going to prison for leaking a 7,000-page top-secret history of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg responded with a question of his own: “Wouldn’t you go to prison to help end this war?”
The classified documents Ellsberg released to The New York Times and 18 other newspapers were quickly dubbed the Pentagon Papers. They exposed more than two decades of government deceit about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, from 1945 to 1968.
Ellsberg died June 16, 2023, three months after announcing that he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. To millions of Americans who opposed the war, his whistleblowing was an act of patriotism – but millions of others regarded it as treason. In Ellsberg’s own papers at UMass Amherst, where I teach history and direct the Ellsberg Initiative for Peace and Democracy, you can read hundreds of letters to him from ordinary citizens expressing both extremes: the highest possible praise, and vitriolic, often antisemitic, hostility.
How a young war planner became a peace activist is one of the most striking conversion stories in American history. But Ellsberg’s political and moral transformation did not happen in a vacuum.
How a young war planner became a peace activist is one of the most striking conversion stories in American history. But Ellsberg’s political and moral transformation did not happen in a vacuum. It reflected a titanic shift in public attitudes about the Vietnam War. The massive anti-war movement inspired and reinforced Ellsberg’s dissent – and, in turn, his example has emboldened activists and whistleblowers in the decades since.
A ‘knightly calling’
Once a fervent Cold Warrior, Ellsberg joined the Marine Corps in the mid-1950s, earned his doctorate in economics from Harvard and in 1959 became a nuclear war analyst for the Rand Corp., a think tank that, at the time, was funded mostly by the Air Force. In 1964, he was one of the brainy young analysts, dubbed “whiz kids” by the media, that Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recruited to the Pentagon.
Throughout his 20s and early 30s, Ellsberg believed that serving the president was a “knightly calling,” even if it required lying to the public. So how did he come to believe that loyalty to truth-telling superseded loyalty to the chief of state?
From 1965 to 1967, Ellsberg went to Vietnam for the State Department, believing the war was a challenging but necessary part of a global struggle to contain communism. Yet he became deeply disillusioned, convinced that the war could not be won. He was particularly disturbed by indiscriminate U.S. bombing and shelling, most of it on South Vietnam, the land the U.S. claimed to be protecting. About 20,000 American lives had already been lost, and roughly a million Vietnamese people had been killed, about half of them civilians. By the war’s end eight years later, 58,000 Americans and 3 million Vietnamese had died.
Pivotal moments
By 1968, Ellsberg was trying to persuade U.S. leaders to seek a negotiated end to the war. On his own time, meanwhile, he was beginning to meet anti-war activists who advocated a bottom-up effort to demand immediate U.S. withdrawal.
One of them, a Gandhian pacifist named Janaki Natarajan, convinced Ellsberg that he should study leading advocates of nonviolent resistance, such as Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau and Barbara Deming. To this day, one of Ellsberg’s favorite quotations comes from Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”: “Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence.”
But most galvanizing for Ellsberg were the Pentagon Papers, which he helped compile for McNamara. Full of technocratic euphemisms for lethal policies, the documents convinced him that the entire history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam was marked by deception: that it was an aggressive counterrevolution that denied the Vietnamese people the right of self-determination, disguised as a battle for democracy.
Ellsberg had first viewed the Vietnam War as a just cause to be won, then as an unwinnable stalemate to be gradually abandoned. By late 1969, however, he saw it as an immoral war to be ended unilaterally and immediately.
Millions of Americans had already come to that conclusion. Back in 1965, in fact, Ellsberg’s future wife, Patricia Marx, agreed to a first date only if it included an anti-war demonstration in Washington.
Just as he finished reading the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg attended a War Resisters League conference that proved pivotal to his decision to leak the documents. There he met a few of the 3,250 young Americans who were sentenced to up to three years in prison for resisting the draft. Deeply moved by their courage, Ellsberg asked himself what he could do if he were willing to risk prison and his career.
A month later, with help from his friend and Rand colleague Anthony Russo, Ellsberg began photocopying the Pentagon Papers.
Going public
For the next year and a half, Ellsberg tried to get anti-war members of Congress to put the documents into the congressional record and hold hearings. None was willing, so he eventually offered them to war correspondent Neil Sheehan at The New York Times – the first newspaper to report on the papers’ revelations.
Public interest was scant, however, until President Richard Nixon began attacking the press and Ellsberg. Although the Pentagon Papers did not include Nixon’s time in office, the White House feared that Ellsberg might leak more documents – especially about Nixon’s 1968 effort to sabotage the Vietnam peace talks to improve his odds of winning the presidential election.
The government indicted Ellsberg on a dozen felony counts with a possible 115-year prison sentence. He was the first American ever criminally charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for disclosing classified documents to the press and public rather than to a foreign agent or nation.
Ellsberg was spared prison. Late in his 1973 trial, Watergate prosecutors discovered that the White House had authorized crimes against him, including a break-in at his psychiatrist’s office, in a failed search for incriminating information. The judge had little choice but to declare a mistrial.
Post-Papers life
Ellsberg was a free man, but the personal cost of his dissent was severe. He lost many friends and had to forge a new career as a writer and lecturer. For more than five decades he has been an activist and has been arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience some 80 times on behalf of peace, nuclear disarmament, government accountability, and First Amendment rights.
To most government insiders, Ellsberg’s mutiny was an unpardonable breach of the national security state. No one with so much access to power and privileged information in the U.S. government has ever broken so radically with the policies they once supported.
Yet 50 years later, Ellsberg was widely lauded, even by many people critical of the younger whistleblowers he inspired and defended. Since Sept. 11, 2001, more than a dozen other people have faced criminal charges under the Espionage Act, and some – including Jeffrey Sterling, Chelsea Manning, Daniel Hale and Reality Winner – have been incarcerated.
In early March 2023, Ellsberg made public a letter to friends and supporters announcing that he had only months to live. He closed by thanking fellow activists whose “dedication, courage, and determination to act have inspired and sustained my own efforts.”
Ellsberg’s life and legacy are reminders that individual acts of moral courage depend on examples set by others, and they have the potential to spark more, far into the future. As Ellsberg often said, “civil courage is contagious.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Drone Whistleblower Daniel Hale Pleads Guilty, Advocates Warn of 'Profound Threat' to Free Press
"Using the Espionage Act in this way to prosecute journalists' sources as spies chills newsgathering and discourages sources from coming forward with information in the public interest."
Apr 02, 2021
Press freedom, peace, and human rights advocates are rallying behind Daniel Hale, the former intelligence analyst who blew the whistle on the U.S. government's drone assassination program, and who pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to violating the Espionage Act.
"The U.S. government's policy of punishing people who provide journalists with information in the public interest is a profound threat to free speech, free press, and a healthy democracy."
--Jesselyn Radack,
Hale's attorney
The Washington Postreports Hale, who was set to go on trial next week, pleaded guilty to a single count of violating the 1917 law that has been used to target whistleblowers including Julian Assange, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeffrey Sterling, Reality Winner, and others.
Hale was charged in 2019 during the Trump administration after he leaked classified information on the U.S. government's targeted assassination program to a reporter, who according to court documents, matches the description of The Intercept founding editor Jeremy Scahill. He is the first person to face sentencing for an Espionage Act offense during the administration of President Joe Biden.
As vice president under President Barack Obama, Biden contributed to the creation of whistleblower protections in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, while simultaneously serving in an administration that, while promising "a new era of open government," relentlessly targeted individuals who revealed U.S. war crimes and other classified information.
\u201cOutrageous that drone whistleblower Daniel Hale will be going to prison for exposing the drone murders by the US military. Why don't the murderers go to jail? Or the ones who ok the murders? Or the ones who make the killer drones and profit from murder? https://t.co/bD6kXP26Gp\u201d— Medea Benjamin (@Medea Benjamin) 1617290886
Kiriakou--a former CIA agent who under Obama was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment for exposing U.S. torture--told Kevin Gosztola that he is "dissapointed that Daniel Hale's case was continued in the Biden Justice Department."
"I had hopes that Biden's Justice Department appointee would recognize the public service that Daniel Hale provided when he revealed illegality and abuse in the drone program," said Kiriakou.
Hale, who was an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Air Force before moving on to the National Security Agency and then the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, "knowingly took highly classified documents and disclosed them without authorization, thereby violating his solemn obligations to our country," according to a statement from Raj Parekh, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
\u201cShame on the Obama DOJ for launching this investigation, shame on the Trump DOJ for bringing these charges, and shame on the Biden DOJ for continuing it\n\nWe stand with Daniel Hale. As do countless journalists, whistleblowers, former government officials\n\nhttps://t.co/YYxH9yDlJn\u201d— Defending Rights & Dissent (@Defending Rights & Dissent) 1617208495
\u201cUsing the Espionage Act in this way to prosecute journalists\u2019 sources as spies chills newsgathering and discourages sources from coming forward with information in the public interest \u2014 particularly when it relates to national security, where government secrecy is at its height.\u201d— Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (@Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press) 1617232895
According to Gosztola, Hale's whistleblowing led to the revelation by The Intercept that "nearly half of the people on the U.S. government's widely shared database of terrorist suspects are not connected to any known terrorist group," details on how the Obama administration approved targeted assassinations, and information about Bilal el-Berjawi, a Briton "who was stripped of his citizenship before being killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2012."
The Post reports that Hale admitted in court to writing an anonymous chapter in Scahill's 2016 book, The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program, which divulged information taken from top-secret documents about drone strike protocols, civilian casualties, and Pentagon officials' debate about the accuracy of intelligence.
"These documents detailed a secret, unaccountable process for targeting and killing people around the world, including U.S. citizens, through drone strikes," Betsy Reed, editor-in-chief of The Intercept, said after Hale's indictment. "They are of vital public importance, and activity related to their disclosure is protected by the First Amendment."
\u201c"The U.S. government\u2019s policy of punishing people who provide journalists with information in the public interest is a profound threat to free speech, free press, and a healthy democracy." -- #DanielHale's lawyer @JesselynRadack on Hale's guilty plea\n\nhttps://t.co/D8SAkqGWd3\u201d— Courage Foundation (@Courage Foundation) 1617289633
\u201cDaniel Hale was my roommate when we were in the Air Force. A kind and caring person who promised his life in defense of this nation and its values.\n\nThe people conducting secret illegal killings in other countries are criminals.\n\nStanding up for human rights makes Daniel a hero.\u201d— Jon Ivy \uff08\u827e\u68ee\uff09 (@Jon Ivy \uff08\u827e\u68ee\uff09) 1617327863
Hale had initially centered his defense on First Amendment grounds, and his numerous defenders condemned his prosecution as a violation of press freedom and freedom of speech. His lawyer, Jesselyn Radack, issued a statement saying "the U.S. government's policy of punishing people who provide journalists with information in the public interest is a profound threat to free speech, free press, and a healthy democracy."
"Classified information is published in the press every day; in fact, the biggest leaker of classified information is the U.S. government," wrote Radack. "However, the Espionage Act is used uniquely to punish those sources who give journalists information that embarrasses the government or exposes its lies."
"Every whistleblower jailed under the Espionage Act is a threat to the work of national security journalists and the sources they rely upon to hold the government accountable," she added.
\u201cCourageous whistleblower Daniel Hale pleaded guilty yesterday to exposing the truth about US drone warfare. He should NOT be imprisoned for revealing the horrendous crimes perpetrated by the US government. #FreeDanielHale\n\nhttps://t.co/OqqtgFLbFP\u201d— CODEPINK (@CODEPINK) 1617315988
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the women-led peace group CodePink, tweeted that it's "outrageous that drone whistleblower Daniel Hale will be going to prison for exposing the drone murders by the U.S. military. Why don't the murderers go to jail? Or the ones who ok the murders? Or the ones who make the killer drones and profit from murder?"
Hale's sentencing is scheduled for July 13. He faces up to 10 years behind bars. Kiriakou told Gosztola that he hopes the judge "recognizes the good in what Daniel Hale has done and gives him the lightest possible sentence."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Ukraine Whistleblowers and the Rise of Partisan Whistleblowing
This moment should spark a conversation about the place of national security whistleblowing in a democratic society.
Oct 18, 2019
"We must determine the whistleblower's identity," tweeted Donald Trump, who has become obsessed with finding and punishing the individual(s) that blew the whistle on the president's dealings with Ukraine.
"Our primary interest right now is making sure that...they are protected," responded Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Face the Nation, noting that two whistleblowers had now come forward from within the intelligence community to expose Trump's phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart.
The ongoing public battle between Trump and Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, is part of an escalating war between Democrats and Republicans over the Ukraine whistleblowers. While Democrats hail the whistleblowers' bravery, Republicans accuse them of espionage and treason.
We are entering an age of partisan whistleblowing, in which whistleblowers are legitimized and judged kindly when their disclosures advantage one party over the other.
The partisan treatment of whistleblowers is new. Until now, congress has joined with the executive to wage a bipartisan war on all public interest whistleblowing. With politicians and pundits fixated on impeachment and democracy, what this moment portends for the future of whistleblowing and democracy has been largely ignored.
Who is a whistleblower?
Disclosures of national security information have always been controversial.
They follow a familiar pattern. Immediately after a disclosure, the whistleblower is branded either a hero or a traitor. Politicians and pundits debate whether they are a "legitimate" whistleblower and obsess over hidden political motives. The whistleblower is often punished, usually incarcerated. Over time the obsession with the whistleblower displaces debates about the contents of the actual disclosure.
This pattern has played out with every episode of national security whistleblowing since the early 20th century, including high-profile public interest disclosures by Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden.
Consider the recent case of Reality Winner.
In 2017, the twenty-six-year-old NSA contractor revealed intelligence analysis of Russian interference in the 2016 election to The Intercept. The Trump administration branded her a "leaker" and convicted her under the Espionage Act, with the longest sentence ever given to a whistleblower. The press briefly obsessed about her name and personality, before the news cycle moved on.
Winner had no advocates in Congress. The only ones who branded her a hero were whistleblowing watchdogs and advocacy groups.
So why the different treatment for the Ukraine whistleblowers?
In disclosing the contents of the phone call and efforts to hide the full transcript, the Ukraine whistleblowers are presented as organizational defenders, protecting the national interest against corrupt presidential behavior. This fits within deliberately narrow state definitions of whistleblowing against "waste, fraud, and abuse."
Although Winner exposed the failure of the White House to address Russia's election meddling, she did not use the right language, go through official channels, or conform to the image of a legitimate whistleblower.
Before now, Republicans and Democrats have come together to sanction, delegitimize, and prosecute anyone who discloses information related to national security.
"Snowden and his defenders claim that he is a whistleblower, but he isn't," said Schiff, only three years ago. "Most of the material he stole," Schiff claimed, "has been of great value to America's adversaries and those who mean to do America harm."
These polarized political times have broken that bipartisan consensus. As attempts to investigate presidential behavior through establishment types like James Comey and Robert Mueller have failed, Democrats have looked to the Ukraine whistleblowers to build a case for dislodging Trump. And Republican have questioned whether these cases involve whistleblowing at all.
As the political trenches are dug, we should ask who defines national security whistleblowing and what protections whistleblowers actually receive.
Who are the gatekeepers?
The Ukraine whistleblowers have used internal reporting channels to deliver their complaints to the Inspector General of the intelligence community. These channels were designed to keep concerns within the executive branch away from congressional and public scrutiny.
The public typically never knows about these complaints. The first one only reached congress because Democratic members pressed acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire after his office deferred to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and refused to pass it on.
Insider channels have failed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.
In 2002, Thomas Drake, a senior NSA official used them to report waste and illegality in the "Trailblazer Project," a massive secret surveillance program. Instead of protecting Drake, the insider channel became a tool of his undoing. The inspector general counsel passed documents to the FBI, which raided Drake's home. When the Defense Department's assistant investigator general advocated on behalf of Drake, he was fired.
In 2006, the Defense Department acting inspector general said it was a "misnomer" to call the existing legislation whistleblower protection statutes. A recent report on internal reporting channels found that one quarter of all inspector general employees and one third of all reprisal investigators said they feared reprisal.
While the Ukraine episode is hailed for its potential political impact, the most consequential cases of whistleblowing have historically involved insiders going directly to the press.
Ellsberg first went to The New York Times with the Pentagon Papers, and Snowden shared his disclosures with The Guardian and The Washington Post. These actions led to landmark Supreme Court rulings on the right to publish and the passage of the USA Freedom Act. They also prompted increased penalties for whistleblowers and for journalists reporting on national security.
The national security state and politicians should not be the sole gatekeepers of what information circulates in the public sphere. Instead of simply celebrating or condemning the new whistleblowers along party lines, this moment should spark a conversation about the place of national security whistleblowing in a democratic society.
Let's not misread the rise of partisan support for whistleblowers as a sign of progress. National security whistleblowing predated Trump, and it will survive his presidency. What happens when the next whistleblower's revelations are hailed by Republicans against Democratic administrations?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular