Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret
Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming
war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University
symposium on Sept. 20.
Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg's remarkable speech:
I think nothing
has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied
by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert
us into what I would call a police state.
If there's another 9/11 under this regime ... it
means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that
has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked
out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans
and so forth.
Will there be anything left for NSA to
increase its surveillance of us? ... They may be to the
limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if
they're not now they will be after another 9/11.
And I would say after the Iranian retaliation
to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack
on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied
by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention
It's a little hard for me to distinguish
the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or
an Iranian attack in which Iran's reaction against Israel,
against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly
in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that
have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written
into law. ...
This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans.
[But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely
to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage
of it, they will exploit it.
Will Hillary Clinton as president decide
to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance?
Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United
States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and
deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don't think
Unless this somehow, by a change in our
political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled
back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in
– and there's no move to do this at this point –
unless that happens I don't see it happening under the next
administration, whether Republican or Democratic.
The Next Coup
Let me simplify this
and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day
realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It's not just a question
that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That's the next coup, that completes
The last five years have seen a steady
assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, ... what
the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model
and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances,
limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected
from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary,
the possibility of impeachment.
There have been violations of these principles
by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush
has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were
done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of
CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.
I could go through a list going back
before this century to Lincoln's suspension of habeas
corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition
Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents
were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration:
domestic enemies of the Constitution.
I think that none of these presidents
with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been
found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations
were not found out until they were out of office so we didn't
have the exact challenge that we have today.
That was true with the first term of
Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable,
they weren't found out in time, but I think it was not their
intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their
actions, to change our form of government.
It is increasingly clear with each new
book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his
now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind
since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001,
but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government
under an Executive president – elected or not – with
unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.
When I say this I'm not saying
they are traitors. I don't think they have in mind allegiance
to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power.
I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and
what they think is best for this country – but what they think
is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders
of this country and Constitution thought.
They believe we need a different kind
of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by
decree, which is what we're getting with signing statements.
Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is
one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves,
but in other ways are just saying the president says "I decide
what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate."
It's [the same] with the military
commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive
Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative,
judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely
what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert
to the best of their ability in the Constitution.
Founders Had It Right
Now I'm appealing to
that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because
I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders
had it right.
It's not just "our way of
doing things" – it was a crucial perception on the corruption
of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions
that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative
was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars
like the one coming.
That brings me to the second point. This
Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition
from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly
intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards,
standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly
everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress.
The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to
control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many
other places. That is consensual in our establishment. ...
But even by those standards, an attack
on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don't mean it
to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it's not only aggression
and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime,
but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.
Does that make it impossible? No, it
obviously doesn't, it doesn't even make it unlikely.
That is because two things come together
that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress –
Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media,
we have freed the White House – the president and the vice
president – from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts,
media, public, whatever.
And on the other hand, the people who
have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have
And the question is what then, what can
we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It
is not certain. It is likely. ... I want to try to be realistic
myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed
to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is
What I'm talking about in the way
of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain.
Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more
likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration
we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.
And ... we will not succeed in moving
Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president
from doing this. And that's where we're heading. That's
a very ugly, ugly prospect.
However, I think it's up to us
to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large
– possibility and probability to avert this within the next
15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest
of our lives.
Restoring the Republic
Getting back the constitutional
government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don't get
started now, it won't be started under the next administration.
Getting out of Iraq will take a long
time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a
9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can't be put off.
It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have
seen very little...
We have a really unusual concentration
here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their
lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent,
risked and experienced being called terrible names, "traitor,"
"weak on terrorism" – names that politicians will
do anything to avoid being called.
How do we get more people in the government
and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis
in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for
example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be
brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn't
just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.
I took an oath many times, an oath of
office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department,
as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer.
A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath
office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the
United States and every officer in the United States armed services.
And that oath is not to a Commander in
Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer.
It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect
and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Now that is an oath I violated every
day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when
I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into
a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war
I knew that I had the documents that
proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath
which I eventually came to do.
I've often said that Lt. Ehren
Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders
to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional
and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States
armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath.
The president is clearly violating that
oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going
on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that's
the standard that I think we should be asking of people.
On the Democratic side,
on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders
in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it
is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain
a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid
can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.
I'm not going to say that for politicians
they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely,
or that they should not worry about that.
Of course that will be and should be
a major concern of theirs, but they're acting like it's
their sole concern. Which is business as usual. "We have a
majority, let's not lose it, let's keep it. Let's
keep those chairmanships." Exactly what have those chairmanships
done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?
I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post
who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we ... get back habeas corpus.
The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did
not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years
ago in terms of counter-revolution.
We need some way, and Ann Wright has
one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested.
Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day
for saying the simple words "swear him in" when it came
I think we've got to somehow get
home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold
the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling
for in part because it's only with the power that the Constitution
gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect
the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an
attack on Iran.
And the current generation of American
generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe
have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their
past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere,
like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation
with the president to the slightest degree.
That has to change. And it's the example of people
like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they
as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves
the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.
Reprinted with permission from Consortium