About William Wells brown . How many of you knew his work . Was seen no before tonight . The camera cant catch all of them. I counted four hands and maybe that is part of the justification for five years of hard but very devoted and rewarding work. Anyone else . Thank you very much. [applause] we have books for sale. As i said before we also have other ridings. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] watching booktv on cspan2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, booktv, television for serious readers. This weekend on booktv, are students getting value in their College Education . We look at how and why texas is a red states, should corporate criminals go to jail or pay fines . And the latest book on the and politicians and a literary visit to lafayette in indiana. 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. Booktv, television for serious readers. You are watching booktv, next the editors and contributor to the book whistleblowers, leaks and the media talk about legal and policy issues surrounding Media Coverage of National Security aegis. This is an hour and 10 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] all right. I will do a three count. 3, 2, good afternoon. I with the Museum Institute and i would like to welcome you tonight to the studio at the museum. Analyses of programs and issues that are of importance to our country and we find of interest to other nan rich, we are glad to have you here. Let me turn it over to todays moderator. My name is tim mcnulty and i teach at the school of journalism and i will do the moderating, and introduce the panel. And the codirector of the National SecurityJournalism Initiative and the head of the schools washington program. You have already met gene policinski, chief operating officer of the Museum Institute. Paul rosenzweig is principal and founder of red Branch Security and a former senior official of the department of homeland security. And Harvey Rishikof is cochairman of the American Bar AssociationNational Task force on cyber and the law. You are here to talk obama new book, whistleblowers, leaks, and the media, the First Amendment and National Security. Want to give a moment of background to talk about this is the second book published by the American Bar Association in collaboration with northwestern at school. This, the National Security law in the news, a guide for journalism, scholars and policymakers. The three of us are coeditors of this book. It was written by lawyers who are experts in their fields. They were supporting the National Security for the last six years. If you indulge me for just one more minute, i want to give you some definition of what our panel is discussing today. Whistleblower exposes dishonest or illegal activity in government or private matters. That could be a violation of a law or rule, corruption or a threat to the Public Interest such as fraud or safety violations. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally to other people within the organization, or and externally to regulators to lawenforcement agencies, concerned about those issues. Whistleblowers are protected by some laws but can face reprisals under others. I want to be exact about the definitions. Leaks on made by employees of an organization who have access to information that they arent authorized to disclose publicly especially to the media. They believe doing so is in the Public Interest due to the need for speedy publication of because it otherwise would not have been able to be made public war simply as selfpromotion. There are many motivations. Leaks can be intentional or unintentional, political leaks for example often efforts to manipulate coverage and to test policy ideas without being identified with them. There is the third category we are not going to talk about today and that is buying. A spy is a person that can be used by one government to obtain secret information to the detriment or harm of another government or industry and that is beyond our brief here. This is whistleblowers, leaks and the american media. One other note, there will be these books available and the authors will stick around to sign them afterhours session today. We will also give time for your questions after we have some discussion. And now, gene policinski, Ellen Shearer was going to go first. I am going to take you on a dual track down memory line, we are going to start with 1970 one when one of the first moderately controversies occurred. This may be familiar to some of you. The pentagon papers. Daniel els bird was a researcher at the rand corp. And shared 43 volumes of a massive pentagon study about the vietnam war. He shared them with the New York Times which published stories starting on june 13th, 1971. The Justice Department requested that they stop but they didnt. The government found an injunction to stop Future Publishing because it was part of this year east. The District Court declined but the Appeals Court did impose prior restraint and sent the case to the lower court for further consideration. However the Supreme Court struck down that border and callorder unconstitutional prior restraint. Statute we will be talking about in some other cases. Those charges were dismissed by a federal judge after it became clear it that the white house had been gathering evidence illegally against belzberg. Pentagon papers is held up by the news media as a standard for the proposition that the government cannot restrain even classified material. And a lesson we can take is the news media can be prosecuted post publication. Now we move to 1985. And naval analyst, Samuel Morison was removed because of the espionage act. And the only Government Official convicted under that act for giving classified information to the press. He had been an analyst at the Naval Intelligence support center but was a free lancer for defence weekly, a british publication. He gave james defense weekly photos of a soviet Aircraft Carrier having removed the secret label from those photos. The magazine published the photos. He denied he had seen the photos but eventually was arrested when the fingerprints were on them. His conviction was upheld, making it clear the release of classified information to the news media could be punished to the same degree as the release of classified information to a foreign enemy government. President clinton hardened morrison at the end of his presidency. Moving into the 2,000s. Another kind of important case involved an iran analyst at the pentagon named lawrence franklin. As part of a plea deal on espionage charges helped the fbi with the investigation of two people thank you he provided information to employees of the American Israeli Public Affairs committee. Their names are Stephen Rosen and keefe y sman. They were the first civilians who did not work for the government to be charged under the espionage act. Some of the information that was released to them related to potential attacks by u. S. Troops on iraq, al qaeda, terrorism, central asia and other similar information. After getting the information from franklin, they would convey the information to members of the media and israeli officials. Rosen and why isman were accused of conspiring to obtain classified information and disseminated to the immediate and the israeli government. That was in 2005. The federal judge in the case had to examine to what extent individuals could be charged under the espionage act when they were not government employees. And have the information was potentially harmful to National Security. One of the more important cases that is ongoing is a case the started in 2006 with the publication of a book by New York Times reporter james risen. He published in his book the u. S. Intelligence planned to sabotage Irans Nuclear program. The federal government tried to find out who the source of his in information was. Reason to this day is publicly not disclosing, it is known that a u. S. C i a officer who gave him the information is jeffrey sterling. Sterling was arrested for leaking the information. Despite the fact that the information is now known, james risen is appealing his conviction for not revealing his source and that is an ongoing press controversy. Moving we kind of another case that involves another, james rosen of fox news and this really involves the prosecution of a state Department Contractor named stephen kim. And the defense information to james rosen. What can disclosed was information about u. S. Intelligence related to north korea. End to respond to a u. N. Security council by conducting a nuclear test. The case got a lot of attention in 2013 when it was revealed the Justice Department had told a judge that rose and might be liable to conspiring to violate the espionage back. The government didnt intend to prosecute rosen under the espionage pact but instead using the allegations that he was a conspiracy conspirator at a technical step to get his records when the law was clear that the government should not have been able to do so. Prosecutors realized they couldnt use various electronic privacy act so instead they set about creating a scenario in which rose and was waiting and abetting under the espionage act. One of the things that is interesting about this particular case is the fbi affidavit makes it clear the fbi has the ability to track and extensive amount of information about federal employees directly or about reporters who interact with the them. The prosecution clearly had overwhelming evidence that kim had released the information but wanted more, one might argue. The affidavit was submitted to justify a search of james rosens email, what seems clear was a fishing expedition. This information, 2013 is a big year. This information about james rosen came to light after a much bigger sweep of journalism phone records. And hunting for the source of that information. And the two month period, and 20 telephone numbers at 8 p bureaux up and down the east coast including ap reporters with cellphones. After an outcry from the news media, attorneygeneral eric holder error does not plan to prosecute them as coconspirators in leaks cases. And that brings us up to date in the travel through the worlds. We are familiar enough with the ed snowden case that i dont have to go over the history of it. I would be happy to it everybody wants a quick review. We are talking in cases of law and that. Most americans think of the people involved in this as either heroes, patriots, or villains and traders. I am sure you have your own opinions of these cases. I would like to go to jean and talk about the First Amendment as well. I am glad you didnt in the down to one of those. Let me take a slightly different tack and follows the history and definitions and this tension that i think has always existed our society between a free press and legitimate National Security concerns of the government and foremost, the American Public. We saw from the beginning of the republic, even before there was a republican terms of what was being disclosed about the operations of the colony. The reported incident in which there was a direct challenge to a reporter in disclosing the source of information was 1848 when a reporter for the New York Herald was questions on the source of information about the draft of a treaty circulated in the senate with the war with mexico and that is not an exact parallel because the senate trying to find out who among them leaked but it was that kind of tension back in 1848. I was prevented by the editors in my contribution from starting out my contribution which was a look at the free press and the history of trying to explain why no report was ever successfully prosecuted under the espionage act by quoting like Kindergarten Teacher miss francis, when presented with a complex question would say because. That is really the answer. In some way in what why nobody was brought to bear. There was a procedural or legal matters and Public Opinion. There is no exclusion for media. And the reporter who has firsthand knowledge or exclusion who is a tertiary. If you do this, this results. Part of the was given to the apex case comment and there was a play in the joints, and the ultimate intent to harm. And harm the interests of the United States and the press formally or informally relied on that. Frankly there is the presence to those who are ultimately responsible and that is the American Public. And the collisions over the disclosures of information was deemed classified or not known, Financial Security forces and the ultimate harm to the republic, and the greater good of the public not knowing the existence or the history, and the American Public would come down in the court of Public Opinion on the side of disclosure or free press. I am not mindful nor do i wish to be about the threat that can happen with the disclosure of information, and hard terms and very defined terms and true movements. And the near release making the codebreaking in world war ii, things were fairly easily recognized, and cant talk about that. But you find as we move into this great summary of contemporary issues is harder to get to that level both from the definition of the material and what we now call a free press. If we look at the current history, and our contrarian views by saying equations tilt in favor of disclosure as far as we know, has been in the judgment of the American People far better to have known much of what we know than not to have known on a policy level. And how far down the line you have to go. If you take judge rose ands case it was a real flap over this what is now called a technical procedure, to allow the process to records from the press side. One of the other defenses that has been a bulwark, it came out of a cellphone case, if you were not the instigator or a party to obtain these documents, you didnt hold the door open for the person to grab the law of the desk, you didnt offer many to get those. They come in for those over the transom, a small window but if it came over the transom you essentials the were not subject to prosecution for the obtaining of those documents. The espionage act again, the blackandwhite might allow prosecution simply by having them. Sort of a multi layered defense for a free press in terms of the court of law and court of Public Opinion. One of the more egregious to the press and much of the American Public in this hole recent careful is widely acknowledged as a fishing expedition on the records of the Associated Press in which these vast my definition that the amount of knowledge or information from a thirdparty tracking phones and records and other things were obtained and the government broke the rules. If there is the reason for skepticism throughout our history, the healthy skepticism, if not cynicism but skepticism, there is a cynicism. The Justice Department in the wake of watergate and the pentagon papers, set up with the knowledge of the oppressor and guidelines, not statutes but guidelines on how to proceed, they went ahead and violated those. They had this gathering storm in the sense of those who are advocates for free press saying we start to see this nudge toward prosecution for the unindicted coconspirator. Take away the defense. Lets grab some of that information without a warrant, without guidelines, you begin to feel this encirclement. It is harder to define the president i will stop there. Harder to find the press because it is not pretend order but there is a substantial land very brick and mortar free press that exists. I would simply those who dated on wiki leaks and such dont read my test of journalism although they might somehow under free press definition. Lets go to the other side about this fundamental tension that is evidence and as americans we want limited government but we all want defense of government. So Paul Rosenzweig might address that next. Thanks for the invite and thanks for having us here. It is great to bring a book like this to the museum. Theres a certain artificiality to the debate style of these. If you wanted good summary did give you all of the law and both sides of the argument this is the book for you and we are expressing the tension that underlies this problem in debate format which can be eliminating and enjoyable. We start on the two things that have already been discussed. The james rose in case first. James rose ands case involved the disclosure of the ability of the state department and Intelligence Community to know the intentions inside the politburo of north korea. A condemnation that north korea would respond by detonating another nuclear weapon. This is obviously very highquality information from a source or so