For Antiwar.com and Chaos Radio 95.9 in Austin, Texas, I'm Scott Horton.
This is Antiwar Radio.
Alright, we're going to start this show off with our first interview.
It's the other Scott Horton.
Heroic international human rights anti-torture lawyer and professor at Columbia University.
He's a legal affairs correspondent at Harper's Magazine, where he keeps the great blog that I'm looking at right now, No Comment.
Welcome back to the show, Scott.
How are you doing?
Hey, great to be with you, Scott.
Well, thanks for joining us.
I really appreciate you making the time for us today.
I know it's, I guess, blizzard conditions again there in the northeast, huh?
That's right.
You know, sort of warm, big snowflakes falling, but, you know, making things a little bit difficult to get around.
I saw a picture of a guy who made a really cool colored, kind of Chinese-looking dragon out of a snowbank on a sidewalk.
That's pretty cool.
Somewhere up there.
Alright, anyway, first of all, let's talk about the Guantanamo suicides.
Your article in, it's the March issue of Harper's, right?
That's right.
On the fans now.
Oh, good.
And, of course, it's at the website at harpers.org as well.
And you've had some interviews on your blog lately, No Comment there, where you've, I guess, basically been talking to medical professionals about the autopsy and other issues like that.
Why don't you go ahead and fill us in on the developments in this story?
Well, that's right.
You know, the Pentagon responded to my story in part by saying it was just standard procedure to remove the throats from the victims of death by asphyxiation and preserve them.
And there was nothing unusual about the fact that the bodies were then turned over to their families with these throats removed and they couldn't be examined for a secondary autopsy.
And then they went on to say the families never asked for the throats to be turned over.
So I went and I tracked down the attorneys for the families.
In fact, I published the letter making the demand.
And I also examined this long series of e-mails that went back and forth between the chief military pathologist who worked on the case and the Swiss pathologist who were trying to do the secondary autopsy, in the course of which the U.S. military guy said, gee, I'd love to cooperate with you, but I'm being ordered not to.
So that explains what was going on there.
We also had a long interview with Dr. Michael Bodden, the guy who does the HBO series Autopsy and is also the chief forensic pathologist or expert for Fox News.
And he talked about what he saw.
And he said basically he thought the government's autopsy reports raised very, very serious questions, that there were irregularities at every turn.
And he suggested very strongly he thought there was a great need for further examination of the bodies here and the materials to see if the government's claim that these people committed suicide by hanging could really stand up.
All right.
Now, so first of all, here we have them busted in a lie, busted by documents, saying that the families never asked for these body parts and the families can prove that, yes, in fact, they did.
That's one thing, right?
That's right.
And we also have the people on the – it's not a question of the leather being lost somehow, because we got communications later with the military pathologist acknowledging he got it.
And then you say it was the follow-up attempted pathologist, the Swiss guy, who said that he's been ordered not to talk.
Is that right?
No, the other way around.
Oh, I'm sorry.
The families asked the Swiss pathologist to do a second autopsy.
And the Swiss pathologist and his team then communicated with the American doctor who did the first autopsy, saying they had questions, they were concerned about the fact that these body parts had been removed, they needed to examine them.
And the American responded saying, gee, I'd love to cooperate with you, but I'm being ordered not to.
So very clear that somebody in the military was giving directions for no cooperation with the second autopsy, which is really, really suspicious.
Yeah, well, that's a whole other thing entirely than the way I had framed it there.
That was the conversation between pathologists.
Now, here's the thing, though.
I don't know anything about pathology or the politics of such things.
Is that some kind of unheard of, unprecedented thing for an autopsy doctor in the military to say to some foreign civilian, sorry, I can't help you?
Very unusual.
In fact, I've spoken also with several military pathologists who have told me that there's just no question about it that cooperation with a second, if the family asks for a second autopsy and qualified pathologists undertake it, which is what was going on here, it just reflects it.
They automatically cooperate.
So it's really unheard of for them to refuse cooperation and to refuse to turn over all the body parts.
It smacks of a very serious cover-up.
Now, part of this was a particular bone that was broken in the neck.
You've reported and I think you quote the Fox News expert on your blog there saying that, yes, this is the kind of thing.
This bone is much more likely to be broken in a manual strangulation than in a hanging.
But then how likely was it or did he say how likely it was that this bone could actually just be broken accidentally during the autopsy, which is, I think, the government's story about why this bone is broken and is at least one victim.
It's called the hyoid bone.
And Dr. Bodden says, yeah, when you see a broken hyoid bone, that's usually very strong evidence that somebody's been strangled, not consistent with a suicide attempt or a suicide by hanging.
But, you know, the government claims that the hyoid bone was broken accidentally when they were removing the neck material.
And Dr. Bodden says, you know, this is something that can be established very clearly one way or the other by examination of the material right around the bone.
You know, if it shows hemorrhaging or bleeding or contusions, that would indicate that the bone was broken while the guy was still alive, which would mean he was strangled to death.
And if you don't see that sort of presence of blood and bruises, that would indicate that the breaking occurred, as the government alleges, after he died.
So that's something that could be checked up on pretty quickly.
Well, but here we're in a situation where the checking is not being allowed.
Did he indicate whether he thought that was kind of a surprising version of the story that, you know, come on, how would the hyoid bone be broken during an autopsy?
Or is that the kind of thing that could happen and probably does happen all the time?
Of course, it's possible that you could break it while removing.
But, you know, that would indicate real incompetence on the part of the pathologist who is removing this material.
So it's certainly not something that usually occurs.
So, you know, I think his view was that this was yet another very disturbing fact.
All right.
Now, Seton Hall University, which first put together the report about this asymmetric attack by Al Qaeda against us here, they now have a follow up because, of course, the Pentagon in disputing your story has attempted to dispute them as well.
And in their follow up, they kind of made a mockery out of the Pentagon's defense here.
Scott, why don't you tell us a little bit about that?
Well, that's right.
They issued a subsequent report that was called D.O.
D. contradicts D.O.
D.in which they went over the major claims that the D.O.
D. made and its attempts to rebut my story.
And it showed how pretty much all these claims they make contradict things that they said earlier on.
You know, good example, they say that my claim that the three prisoners were found with cloth down their windpipe down their throats is absolutely untrue.
They say only one of them had cloth down his throat.
That's the D.O.
D. statement in response to my article.
It's absolutely untrue.
You can go back and you look at the report that was prepared by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service.
And it clearly shows that all three of them were found with cloth in the windpipe.
In fact, the government also went on, the Pentagon did, to say I was insinuating some sort of insidious conduct by government pathologists suggesting that they must have removed the cloth in some way and destroyed evidence.
But in fact, the removal of the cloth is documented in the report.
You've got the reports of medical professionals who say the cloth was in the throat and they removed it before attempting resuscitation in one case and in order to get to access to the windpipe and mouth in another case.
So again, you know, the Department of Defense responds without really reading the report.
Yeah, well, and let's focus on that.
There are more contradictions here I'd like to talk about.
But on the rags thing, I don't know, it's kind of just sloppiness on the part of the cover up here where they're not even checking their own statement.
I mean, they're changing the number.
They're saying, well, and maybe I'm confused.
Are they saying only one of them had a rag in his mouth at all?
Or only now they all three did, but only one of them had somehow inhaled the rag down his throat?
No.
And the last response from from Sean Wallace, who is the Department of Defense PR guy, he says only one of them had a rag in his mouth, which is just wrong.
Now, why is this important?
Because the evidence we see suggests that the death by asphyxiation is connected with the presence of this cloth, not only in the mouth, but going down the windpipe of the three people.
Most likely it was death by asphyxiation through choking, not hanging in a cell.
And now a couple of these discrepancies are, you know, whether the lights were dim or whether they were on or off, the number of interviews.
I guess I'll let you go ahead and elaborate on the number of interviews and then especially please the contradictions about the video footage from the cell block that night.
Well, that's right.
Well, let's start with the video footage.
That's an interesting thing, because in reviewing the NCIS report, one thing everybody was disturbed by was that there was no reference to the video cameras.
And of course, there were video cameras installed in the hallway that would have monitored everything, would have noted whether these people were in fact removed.
And in fact, you know, we have the guards saying they were removed from the cell block.
So, of course, that would have been documented.
Whether soldiers monitoring the cells went back and forth after the time they allegedly died, that would have been documented.
Their removal from the cells and them being taken to the clinic, that would have been documented.
Now, so there's no reference to any of that anywhere in the NCIS report, which is quite bizarre.
And then when the point is raised and pushed by Seton Hall, the response that comes from, again, from the DOD's public affairs official is that, well, there was nothing of any interest in those videotapes.
And you just have to sort of stop and ask, like, excuse me, how is that possible?
Well, even if they're pointed at the ground, that's interesting.
That's right.
I mean, you know, if they were disabled, if they've been moved so they didn't capture anything, if they showed nothing, which is, in fact, what I think they would have shown, according to the theory that's advanced based on the watchtower guards, they would have shown just about nothing.
And that would be extremely revealing because it would suggest a lot of things that the NCIS report claims occurred didn't, in fact, occur.
So, yeah, so that is quite significant.
Now, next, the critics, you know, the principal critic of my story so far is a former Marine officer named Joe Carter, who's written at length on first things, and his criticism has basically been to say that, you know, Horton cites these five tower guards and what they saw and what they observed, but the NCIS report is based on 50 different accounts of what happened, and how can it be that these 50 people are wrong and the five tower guards are right?
He says it's five versus 50, can't be, has to be that the 50 people are right and the five are wrong.
Now, the problem with this is that, and Seton Hall does a good job of tracking this down, the 50 accounts are not, in fact, 50 accounts.
It's 50 interviews, and this reflects the same people being interviewed over and over and over again, sometimes three and four different times.
So it's not 50 different people, and in fact, if we look through these accounts and we see who contradicts or who gives a version of facts that really is at odds with what the tower guards give, it's six people.
It is the alpha block guards, the six alpha block guards who give a different account from the tower guards.
What's interesting about that?
Principally, this point, one day after they were initially interviewed, the NCIS gave formal criminal warnings to those same six alpha block guards telling them, we think you're lying to us.
And one of them was also warned that he was disobeying a direct order.
In fact, we don't have copies anywhere of the statements that these people made before they were issued these warnings.
We have copies only of the statements they made after the warnings were issued.
So there was an intense coercion applied on these people to give a certain kind of account, and then that is the account that NCIS used.
So it's extremely suspicious, but you just step back to the fact, who's more credible, the watchtower guards or the alpha block guards?
The alpha block guards were deemed not to be credible by the NCIS itself.
That's the starting point.
Two, they were under immense pressure, including threat to bringing criminal charges against them, unless they gave a certain account, which is another reason to believe that their account of what happened that evening was manipulated consciously by the people who were conducting the investigation.
Okay, so just to make sure that we're clear on this, 50 interviews becomes quite narrowed down because it's the same people being interviewed over and over again.
Now, these other statements, aside from the guards, that you say don't contradict your witnesses, the guard tower guys outside, do they actually substantiate what your witnesses say, or they just don't make reference either way in a conclusive fashion, or how's that?
Well, for instance, the six are the ones who claim to have seen them hanging from their cell in the alpha block.
Okay, that's directly contradictory to what the watchtower people say.
The others are mostly people who are in the clinic who talk about seeing the bodies when they come in and observe and describe them.
Well, that's not in dispute.
I mean, of course, our people say that the bodies were delivered to the clinic and that's where they were.
So there's really not a difference in the presentation between the tower guards and the alpha block guards on that score.
And those statements really don't contradict the tower guards.
Right, but they're sort of beside the point.
They don't really verify it either.
Okay, now, so as far as the six guards, now, I guess the guy, Joe Carter, there at First Thinks would say, well, look, it was their fault, right?
They were supposed to be on guard on this cell block.
These three guys committed suicide.
They must have, you know, told a version of the story that made themselves look pretty good to the initial investigators, and no wonder they were threatened and forced to then tell the truth, right?
Well, I would view this, I mean, I would think a criminal investigator would view that point quite differently.
That is, these are people who have every reason to doctor the facts to try and get themselves off the hook, whereas the people in the towers have no concern.
It really, you know, it doesn't reflect negatively on them, whatever the facts were.
So the ones on the inside, the alpha block guards, are the ones whose statements would have been more inherently suspect and, in fact, were viewed as not truthful by the NCIS when it began its investigation.
So, you know, so Joe Carter is saying it's sort of a test between the alpha guards and the tower guards, and who do you think is more credible?
And I'd say on objective legal criteria, there's no question but that the tower guards' testimony would be deemed more credible.
Right.
Because of no self-interest.
Right, yeah, I mean, the official story has it that it happened on the watch of these other guys, so.
I mean, if it just comes down to they said and they said, it does seem pretty clear, you know, who you'd have to side with just on the basis of that alone.
Now, Keaton Hall really focuses in on one other fact that I had missed before, and that is that we know all these people were asked to write down statements immediately after the events, and many of them did write down their statements, and all those statements seem to have disappeared.
There's no record of them.
Oh, you don't say.
They don't show up anywhere.
But you do have it, they have it, Keaton Hall has it as a document, in fact, that they were asked to write something.
It is part of the standard operating procedure, and in the course of their interviews, several of them talk about sitting down and beginning to write their sworn statements.
So we know, and from many accounts, that the statements, preparation of these statements was begun.
We also know that at some point down the road, people were told, stop, right, don't do this anymore.
Now, that's already extremely suspicious.
Why is it that the command authority is saying, don't write up sworn statements?
So there clearly is some sort of effort going on, and this is at one and two days after the death, to coordinate an account of what happened and to obliterate the initial eyewitness sworn statements of what happened.
That's also highly irregular and highly suspicious.
All right, now, talk to me a little bit about your witnesses.
You have, I guess, four of them to the events of that night in your article, and it's thegetmostsuicidesatharpers.org on your newsstand there in Harper's Magazine.
And then you have five witnesses, including one unnamed witness, to the instructions given by the commander the next morning that you are to lie, or at least not contradict our lie from here on out.
So I'd like you to maybe just talk a little bit about them.
And then also, can you tell us whether you've had any new witnesses come forward, or you've learned anything else about this?
Have you been able to track down anyone else who was there and might know something relevant in your follow-up work on this?
Well, I'll answer the last question first.
Yes.
We now have witness number six, who confirms pretty much what witnesses two through four have confirmed.
I haven't written this up yet, but it will be coming shortly.
So there is yet another witness now stepping forward corroborating the same statement.
But, you know, let's talk about who these witnesses are.
They're all members of the 629th Military Intelligence Battalion.
Most of them were on guard duty that night.
They were assigned to maintain perimeter security for Camp Delta, you know, inside the Guantanamo Naval Base that evening.
And, you know, their duties included monitoring tightly everything that entered and left the camp.
So when they say these prisoners were removed, you know, they are reporting what they were required to monitor.
They were also, from the towers, supposed to keep an eye on everything that was going on inside the camp, and that included specifically movements of people down this central alleyway between the camp buildings, the barracks, and the detainee clinic.
So, you know, when they say they saw or rather they didn't see people going from the barracks to the clinic that evening, that's also something that it was their responsibility to keep track of.
And the person who's provided by far the most detailed report here was the Sergeant of the Guard.
That is, he was the NCO who was in charge that evening of the perimeter security.
And as Sergeant of the Guard, he moved from post to post to post, keeping track of everything that was going on.
And he's also a licensed private investigator and a decorated soldier who, in fact, was praised by his commanders for his work at Guantanamo at that time, was selected as the NCO of the quarter, and departed with a commendation medal.
And what about the others?
And the others were, you know, they were also NCOs who worked with him very closely.
Another one of the others was also a private investigator, you know, who earned his living basically keeping an eye on things.
And they're all, I'm thinking now, all of them are either reserve or still active duty in the military.
All of them, none of them are people who have a grudge or problem with their unit or their officers in the military.
Nothing of that sort whatsoever.
And they all say that, you know, they thought what happened, especially the following morning when they were ordered not to talk about what they had observed and they were told that an official story would be coming out that would be different from what they all observed that evening, they say they thought that was really strange.
And, in fact, you know, they kept their peace about this and didn't say anything because they understood that they had been ordered not to talk about it until, of course, the presidency changed and Barack Obama came and an announcement was made that Guantanamo was going to be closed.
And then I think they decided collectively now it was okay to talk about this.
So these guys aren't writing books and they haven't filed lawsuits and they're not planning on making a bunch of money off this story or anything untoward like that?
Nothing at all like that.
I mean, in fact, they all pretty much they told me and they told others they don't like dealing with the press.
You know, they've not only not been seeking out the press.
I mean, they by and large have not talked to people.
I mean, I think they've given a couple of interviews, but not really very much.
And they don't like it, frankly.
Well, this is something that I was going to ask you about.
The only reference I saw in The New York Times, well, actually, there were two references in The New York Times.
One was sort of the perfunctory AP story that just kind of ran on their site.
And then the second was, I think, Harper's response where they quoted Harper's as saying, The New York Times is ignoring us.
And it was a letter to the editor from the editor of Harper's saying, that's not what we said.
What we said was you were ignoring this story by Scott Horton about the so-called suicides at Guantanamo Bay.
That's what we said.
And then they had no response to it.
That's funny enough to put on the side, I guess.
Well, it's true.
I mean, it was Rick MacArthur who said that.
He's our publisher.
And he had given an interview to them, a very lengthy interview, in which they, you know, in the course of talking about the publication, he talked about the article I had written and said how, you know, troubled he was at the fact that this article was getting relatively little media play.
And they reported this in an article in which they said Mr.
MacArthur said he was upset that Harper's wasn't getting a lot of media attention, which simply isn't what he said at all.
And so he sent them the correction and they published it.
And then they still didn't cover the story at all.
You know, I will say I have been contacted by and spoken with two different reporters at The New York Times who were interested in it and who are collecting facts about it, one of whom told me he's trying to write a story about it now.
So, you know, I think they will.
I mean, one of the things to keep in mind is that this is a factually very complex matter.
You know, I researched it for six months before writing this story.
It's not something you can just do over the weekend.
It's very complex.
It takes a lot of time to come up to speed on all the detail and all the issues.
So I think there will be, you know, further press reports about this.
And I strongly expect we're going to see in broadcast media one of the major networks running a major story about this shortly.
And I've talked to some of the people who are involved with that.
Wow, that is great news.
And now part of that story is going to have to be where's the Justice Department?
They got a monopoly on this kind of thing here.
It's not like I can indict.
And indeed, you know, we've had two stories that have addressed that angle of it.
You know, we have Jane Mayer's story in The New Yorker.
And then yesterday we had Jodi Kantor and Charlie Savage doing a piece in The New York Times, both of them talking about how's the Justice Department dealing with all of these unpleasant details from the Bush-era war on terror?
And both articles saying Rahm Emanuel has decided that they're not going to deal with these matters, which is exactly what's happened.
There's been a political decision in the White House that there aren't going to be any investigation.
Yeah, didn't you get the memo?
We're not looking backwards at this stuff.
In fact, you quoted it perfectly, Scott.
That's exactly what Rahm Emanuel is quoted as saying about Eric Holder when he initially appointed John Durham to do a preliminary investigation.
So we're told that Rahm Emanuel went just apeshit over that.
Well, look, this is the Saturday Night Massacre, right?
This is the kind of thing that attorneys general are supposed to resign over, being bossed around by the chief of staff over at the White House, the Karl Rove political spin people.
They're not supposed to have anything to do with what happens at the Department of Justice.
If it's run properly in the way the law expects, that's exactly right.
But what's really interesting is that David Ogden, who was the deputy attorney general, did resign.
And we've got some suggestion here that Rahm Emanuel had asked Ogden to try and ride herd over Eric Holder on these matters.
And evidently, as a result of sparks flying between the two of them, Ogden winds up resigning.
So unclear to me exactly what Holder's attitude is.
Clearly he's resisting the White House's efforts to chain him in, but not clear exactly how far he's resisting them.
So this guy, Eric Holder, speaking of him.
Well, I could ask you about chaining, because I like that one, too.
But now let's stick with the underbomber here.
The Republicans are saying that the underbomber should have been called an enemy combatant and taken off to Guantanamo or a black site in Thailand or somewhere to be tortured.
And Eric Holder, in defense, has written a letter to the Senate saying, listen, you guys don't seem to understand.
I don't have the power to turn a U.S. person arrested on American soil over to the military.
The Bush administration tried that twice, and they backed down both times and went ahead and indicted Padilla and Al-Mahri rather than face the Supreme Court over it.
There is no court-approved method for me doing this.
And so, sorry, guys, the law is the law.
But here's my question.
Isn't he wrong?
What about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and of 2009?
Don't they give the president the power, congressionally authorized power, to abduct Americans and turn them over to the military, Scott?
No.
The difference is, was the person seized on U.S. soil?
And if the answer is yes, he was seized on U.S. soil, then those two examples, Richard Reed and Al-Mahri, for instance, but as well as the Padilla case, make clear that you cannot do what the Republicans are arguing.
If he had even seized overseas somewhere, there's a possibility of holding him and putting him through the military commissions process.
But let's also stop and say, yeah, that option of military commissions trials exists in any event with respect to violations of the laws of war.
So if you say somebody's an enemy combatant and you say they broke the laws of war, you can charge them before a military commission.
You could also charge them if they violated crimes or could violate the criminal law in a federal criminal court.
These two things are different.
The laws that are involved are different laws.
And it, in fact, is going to be easier in most cases to charge them with crimes rather than violation of the laws of war.
Once you say the person is a combatant and they're breaking the laws of war, the criminalized activity in that area is fairly limited because they're entitled to use violence against people as long as they're acting against a legitimate target.
But I think in any event here, Holder's point is, I'm doing exactly what Michael Mukasey, John Ashcroft, and Alberto Gonzalez did.
Exactly the same, applying the same rules, applying the same standards, and behaving in the same way.
You guys didn't say a word when they did the same things I'm doing.
And he's right about that.
Well, for utilitarian purposes, as far as how easy it is to get a conviction, the vast amount of leeway that a prosecutor has, that's kind of beside the point for the political argument.
Because the political argument is that soldiers are tougher than FBI agents.
They wear green, not suits.
And they can beat the hell out of somebody.
In fact, tie them up and beat them to death and get away with it.
And so that's who we need to turn this over to.
Yeah, I think that's what they think, but that's just not true.
And in fact, the rules that apply in the military commissions are not radically different from the rules that apply in U.S. federal criminal courts.
The sentences that are handed down are not stronger than the sentences that are handed down in a federal criminal court.
We actually have a basis for judging these things.
We have cases that have gone through the military commissions.
We have outcomes.
We have sentences.
And we have a much larger number of counterterrorism prosecutions in the Bush era.
I'm talking about just what the Bush Justice Department and the Bush Pentagon did.
And if you put these things side by side, they got better results against terrorists and federal criminal courts than they got in the military commissions.
Well, and dozens and dozens of innocent framed-up people as well.
They've had no problem whatsoever.
Manufacturing cases.
Well, no, they've had some problems.
That happens on both sides, I would say, by the way.
That's a problem.
But my point here is just to say that we've got all these Republican political figures talking about this.
And they assume as the basis for their comments facts that aren't facts.
Of course.
Well, but they're Republicans.
That's part of that.
Okay, so now one more thing real quick before I let you go.
Durham's investigation.
I know you know more than the rest of us.
Do you hear that this may actually go somewhere?
And I guess I'll throw in here that Dick Cheney's bragging about ordering torture on television right now.
Well, Durham, I know, has brought people before a grand jury and taken testimony.
So that suggests that there's going to be an indictment.
At least one indictment.
I think the grand jury testimony was taken.
And, of course, all this is secret.
I don't know too much detail about it.
It has to do with the tapes case in which CIA tapes were destroyed.
But I know that the investigation, the preliminary review he's taking up, was supposed to have been concluded in six months.
It's gone to the end of that period.
Now he doesn't appear to be close to rendering a report.
That suggests he's going to seek an extension and it's time to complete his report.
And that suggests this is going somewhere, that there will be some charges of some sort brought.
So it looks to me like something likely is going to come out of it, but we don't know what.
And I would say the way he's conducting this is very professional, because even though I try very hard, I'm not able to learn much about it.
Yeah.
Well, you keep trying, because I want to know everything that you know about it.
Because, you know, I don't know why it is I want so badly to believe in this whole rule of law thing, but maybe it's just I'd like to see Dick Cheney in the dock because of the crimes he committed were actually, you know, violations of the natural moral law in all the ways that I do believe in.
But it sure would be nice to think that there's actually such a thing as a prosecutor independent enough that he could actually indict the vice president at least and cabinet officials, their lawyers.
I mean, because what they've done here, as we've talked about many times on this show, is the worst sort of criminal behavior, tying people up where they're helpless and doing the very worst things to them, including all the way to death.
Scott.
Well, you're right.
I have to say, watching Dick Cheney appear on this week on ABC, I kept seeing Ernst Blofeld from the James Bond movies.
I think we all just need to collect and buy him a Persian cat.
I think he'd make a perfect Blofeld.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, listen, thanks very much for all your work and your time again on the show today, Scott.
Great to be with you.
Take care.
All right, everybody.
That is the other Scott Horton, heroic international anti-torture human rights lawyer, legal affairs correspondent at Harper's Magazine, keeper of the blog No Comment, and author of the article The Guantanamo Suicides.
On the newsstand right now in Harper's Magazine and at their website, harpers.org.
And we'll be right back.
