All right y'all welcome back to the show It's anti-war radio I'm scott horton and uh As I've mentioned to you before Uh, I got this great add-on for my mozilla the tab kit So I can take all of my tabs I can stack them up vertically on the right side of the page So I can have like 70 different tabs and I can group them color code them And have separate categories for afghanistan or iran or whatever it is and always at the top of my police state section my Domestic out of control homeland security state and there is good anti-war stuff there too But always at the top of my police state section Uh the big red s so I know it's glenn greenwald Greenwald from salon.com his latest book is called with liberty and justice for some And you ought to read it and go back and listen to my interview of them all about it Uh, but it's an issue that we've been talking about Uh on this show with glenn for a long long time something he's been blogging about since I think what about 2005 or something And um, he's a former uh litigator civil rights litigator in the courts and uh Now full-time pundit at salon.com and now they change the address all the time But if you just go salon.com/opinion/greenwald, it will forward you on to His great blog there at salon.com.
Welcome back to the show glenn.
How are you doing?
Good, scott.
Great to be back Good.
Well, i'm very happy to have you here.
Uh, so, uh I wanted to uh celebrate a victory with you.
Um a real big deal, uh, the uh, ndaa provisions Providing for indefinite military detention of american citizens was enjoined by a federal court last week So if you could kind of take us briefly, uh through I guess first of all What exactly was were those amendments and uh, what exactly has the court done to them?
Um Sure.
Well, the the ndaa was this bill that was passed at the end of 2011 By a very bipartisan majority in congress and then signed into law by president obama and what it essentially did was it codified for the first time what had already been powers that Both the bush and obama justice departments had claimed and that some courts had recognized which is the power to detain people Without any charges or trial of any kind Including people not just who are alleged to be members of al-qaeda, but also so-called associated forces of al-qaeda Which is an incredibly broad term And it doesn't only cover these theories though the people who are actually members of al-qaeda or Associated forces but also People who lend substantial support to any of those groups So if you look at the 2001 Authorization to use military force it essentially empowered the president To target a very narrow group Which was the group that perpetrated the 9-11 attacks or those countries that harbored them The obama and bush justice departments have both interpreted it way beyond that to say that it Entitles them to target not just members of groups that perpetrated 9-11 But also associated forces and not just members of those groups, but also uh people who have substantially supported Or who substantially support those groups So they went way beyond the statutory language.
Some courts have actually accepted these theories and have allowed for example the oman administration to detain people who have nothing to do with original al-qaeda who Who are allegedly supporting groups that needn't exist at the time and what this ndaa did Was that it codified?
Those broad interpretations and said we the congress Now hereby vest in the president the power To detain people in this much broader set of circumstances than the original au are not permitted Well now when they say bradley manning helped al-qaeda by what he allegedly did liberating all the uh Afghan and iraq war logs and the state department cables and uploading them to the wiki leaks that kind of shows us how willing they Are to use those terms very broadly They could just say look the fact that we are waging the war the way we want to wage It means that we're right and we know what you're doing and for glenn greenwald to constantly harp on our awesome National security policy is a threat to our national security policy Then you are they could say under that same standard right that you are providing Comfort to the enemy for obstructing making people not believe in the way.
They want to protect us all Yeah, absolutely.
I mean the the idea that you can Be detained without charges for any reason Is extraordinarily tyrannical and radical.
I mean even if you are alleged to be a member of al-qaeda you wouldn't want the government with the power to simply accuse you of being a member of a group and thereby Detaining you without charges under any circumstances, but at least in that case where it's narrow relatively narrow There's a pretty clear limit on what the on what the government can do and what they have to To allege once you start adding these extremely Ambiguous terms that are just flooded with all kinds of discussion like any Group that is an associated force of al-qaeda or anyone who substantially supports such groups Then you really are opening the door to almost limitless detention powers And and as you say there are lots of instances where the government has gotten caught Um using these terms in very willy-nilly ways that are far beyond what Their assurances would suggest.
I mean badly manning is one case where where he's alleged to have aided al-qaeda by virtue of Publishing government secrets when they had nothing to do.
He didn't transmit it to al-qaeda.
He didn't intend to help al-qaeda He intended to expose to the world what the government was doing and yet there they said that's helping al-qaeda There are lots of other instances where the federal government has internally characterized people as terrorists And have been and have investigated them under things like the patriarch for acts of dissent That they believe jeopardize national security.
And so it is absolutely true It's not just a theoretical danger, which would be bad enough But an empirically proven danger that if you allow the government this broad discretion to punish people as accused terrorists the broader you get Um that the more they're they're going to abuse that power and what the nbaa did was make it about as broad as it can be Hmm well, and You know, it's it's just a coincidence.
I guess that you have that um That clip that you posted or the the transcript there of connie chung taking off after that tennis player back in 2002 Just to kind of remind us of uh, the atmosphere How it really was back then where in the words of bill o'reilly you shut up man We do not want to hear any criticism out of you and you know I don't know it seems like there's maybe george bush didn't have the the courage To go ahead and go as far as he could have in taking our rights away Or maybe it's taken a decade of this to get us all used to it enough But it seems like that whole, you know, jonah goldberg standard of if you disagree with the government You're guilty of treason and you're objectively on the side of the enemy could actually be used Against you know people like you or people like me and the guys at anti-war.com Well, you know, I think you make a really important point which is that the reason why it sometimes takes a long time to Go to the furthest point of radicalization.
Um, you know, I mean it's sort of counterintuitive, right?
You would think that in the wake of 9-11 in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 when the country was reeling from the terrorist attack When fear levels and hysteria levels were at an all-time high That would be the time that the government would be able to sort of jam through the most radical measures And then as we removed ourselves temporarily from the trauma of 9-11 It would become more and more difficult because fear level was supplied and hysteria Would recede we actually actually the opposite has happened as we get further and further away from 9-11 We see increasingly oppressive and extremist powers being claimed by the government And just to illustrate that fact if you look at what happened in the wake of september 11th in the immediate aftermath of september 11th There were two huge controversies In a couple of months after september 11th, even in october november 2001 These two things were very controversial one that the congress had enacted the patriot act Which was a very significant expansion of the government's ability to surveil to engage its attention to engage in all kinds of Monitoring activities that previously had been unthinkable and this created all kinds of controversy in many many circles um, and then the second thing was the bush, uh decision to create military commissions at guantanamo rather than try people by uh, civilian jury trial or by uh By court-martial they were going to create this new ad hoc Tribunal and this too was extremely controversial.
Well fast forward 10 years later and none of these things is controversial Um because these things become normalized and and that that's how this happens.
All right, i'm, sorry glenn We got to take this break.
We'll be right back.
Everybody salon.com/opinion/greenwall All right, y'all welcome back it's anti-war radio i'm scott whore i'm talking with the heroic glenn greenwald former civil litigator and uh civil rights writer At salon.com/opinion/greenwald we're talking about the ndaa poor guy.
I got you way off track but we're talking about kind of the desensitization Of the american people and how obama is actually getting away with these insane abuses that you could maybe imagine bush getting away with Right after 9 11, but here we are a decade later And now it's just no big deal.
It's also normalized It's post bill of rights america now, I think is something like that But anyway, uh, I should give you a chance also to address the well and see I guess i'm getting on the place where we got off track was the slippery slope of My worry that at some point people who just oppose the policy Maybe people who protest outside at a nato meeting or something like that, uh people who write effective Uh stuff for salon.com Uh might be subjected to these same kind of powers as long as you know, they're making stuff up Uh, why not?
Well, this was interesting that this was really the key question in the lawsuit that you began by referencing that actually produced a surprisingly and quite rare good decision Um, you know, there was a lawsuit that was brought, uh to to ask a federal court to invalidate the indefinite detention provisions of of the ndaa And it was brought by Dissident reporters and activists and writers people like chris hedges the former new york times reporter um, and noam chomsky and wiki leaks advocates um, and uh, and dan ellsberg and and one of the the they really made two arguments one argument they made was that Ordinarily in order to challenge a law and the constitutionality of law you have to show that it's actually been applied to you specifically That's how you show a court that you have standing to sue not anyone can just walk into the court And ask a court to declare a law unconstitutional.
You have to show that you've actually been specifically affected And the argument that these plaintiffs made was that even though they haven't been detained yet under the statute under the law That it is nonetheless directly harming them because they have a very reasonable fear That the activities in which they engage doing reporting on al-qaeda and the taliban doing advocacy like noam chomsky does Doing activism on behalf of wiki leaks could subject them to the Indefinite detention provisions that were passed and that it gives them fear and it deters them and shows them In the work that they want to do so that they're already being harmed without having it been detained And in response the judge in this case is an obama appointed judge said to the justice department Well, their argument is they have a well-grounded fear that they could be detained under the statute simply by doing the things They're doing like journalism and activism and speech So if you want there's a very easy way the judge said to the government for you to get rid of this case Just state on the record very clearly that none of those activities that they engage in these legal constitutionally protected activities Would actually or could subject them to detention under the nbaa And the government refused they said we can't make that representation And so the court found that the plaintiffs do have standing because they have this reasonable fear and that it violates the first amendment free speech rights because the law could Result in their detention based on journalism and activism and it violates their fifth amendment right of due process Because the law is so incredibly vague.
What is an associated force of al-qaeda?
What does it mean to substantially support that group that you the law doesn't even allow you to know in advance?how you violate the law what it what you have to do to actually Subject yourself to indefinite detention and due process requires Every criminal law be clear enough so that you know in advance how not to violate it and the court said this law is way Too broad and ambiguous to meet that standard and so the court Uh enjoined the enforcement of the statute by saying it's highly likely that it's unconstitutional It was an amazing win um, but it was due in large part to the government's refusal to rule out detention under the statute based on the kinds of Things that you're talking about like dissent and criticism and journalism and like yeah so in other words, my alarmist hyperbole is Reasonable according to this federal judge that uh, that is something for uh regular a plain old dissident Like noam chomsky who we all know never never provides aid and comfort to the enemy other than just to oppose the policy Of the government he lives under that's all right, I mean It's actually an amazing ruling for that reason because in order to have standing you really do need to prove not just that you have some imaginary Fear in your head or some paranoid or conspiratorial Uh scenario that you can posit you need to prove that the fear that you have Under that the statute is creating is well grounded and reasonable And the fear that they identified was that given how broad the parameters of the detention provisions are That it actually is a fear a legitimate well-reasoned well-grounded fear That they could be detained for doing things that the constitution protects you your right to do And this federal judge nominated by president obama confirmed by the senate a long time Uh partner in a big corporate law firm in new york Uh found that that fear was sufficiently reasonable such that they had standing to challenge the statute and she then ruled That it was unconstitutional and struck it down.
It was incredibly brave and and and bold Uh decision, uh, but it really gives you a feel for just how extremist the government's arguments in these cases are well, and the thing of it is right is if they can just have you know, Turn you over to the military police and and hold you indefinitely Then that means that you don't ever have to get a trial you don't ever get a chance to face the evidence against you uh, even a military trial necessarily and so In other words, they could just keep the basis for your uh being detained secret forever Anyway, we see how they do they claim secrecy on everything Anyway, so they could just arrest glenn greenwald and say trust us.
We have reason to detain this guy And then would they just leave it at that?
They wouldn't even have to necessarily make a real case against you I mean like all lucky right all they ever made a case against him was Well, we think he may have been in the room when another guy was on the phone planning some attack Right, and they killed him.
They didn't just detain him and very little controversy erupted I mean, let's remember two things first of all in the united states this power to detain Even american citizens captured on u.s Soil without charges has already been exercised the bush administration did it to jose padilla the u.s born Uh american citizen who was arrested in chicago o'hara international airport in 2002 Uh never charged with a crime declared to be an enemy combatant transferred to a military brig in south carolina Where he remained for the next almost three years not just without charges But without any access to the outside world including even a lawyer.
He was denied the right to access a lawyer Um, they finally invited him when the supreme court was about to rule on whether or not you're allowed to do that to a u.s citizen But that power has been exercised Uh in that case and in one other case and very little controversy arose the other thing to remember is that uh, there were a couple of A sort of coalition of liberal democrats and kind of tea party libertarian republicans in the house Just this week Uh who co-sponsored an amendment to the nbaa saying that Even though you can detain people indefinitely You cannot detain people indefinitely if they're picked up on u.s soil or if they are u.s citizens Basically excluding u.s citizens people picked up on u.s soil From the indefinite detention provision and this amendment to say nothing to the government other than you can't imprison your own citizens Or people who you capture on u.s soil without charging with a crime and giving them a trial All things that we learned in third grade were the defining right of the united states this amendment failed um By a fairly substantial margin because almost all republicans and a couple dozen democrats Voted against it.
Um, and so, you know what we're talking about here may sound like it's extremist and radical and it couldn't happen But not only has it happened, but we have all kinds of evidence that when it does happen The mainstream of america's political class not only doesn't object but they enthusiastically approve Yeah, it really is.
I don't know if it was what 60 40 or 70 30 something like that in the house this thing Yeah, it passed it failed by I think three to four dozen votes Yeah, well, um, yeah, that's really something else.
Oh was it just three or four dozen I thought it was by more than that So it was it was it was the vast majority of democrats voted in favor of it um, and roughly two dozen republicans, you know, sort of the tea party, uh anti-war, um libertarian ron paul faction in the house, um Voted in favor of it as well.
And and and and and then the entire republican party With the exception of those that those small numbers and a couple of dozen democrats voted against it.
Yeah Still isn't that just amazing though that that could happen?
I I don't ever watch the the nightly news anymore Brian williams or whatever, but I wonder if that was even a top headline at all, you know Well, you know, it's funny.
It's um, you know Go and look, you know, brian williams the excuse would be and I guarantee you it wasn't even mentioned I guarantee you without knowing I guarantee you that was not mentioned that vote Um, but even look at you know, msnbc which which is supposedly a progressive news network is on You know 18 hours a day 20 hours a day, whatever it is all these things that we've just been discussing You know the president's desire to indefinitely detain people um The assassination of manuel walkie the use of drones These things are almost never even mentioned let alone discuss the dangers highlighted I mean, so here you have the preeminent cable news network to whom progressives Politically interested progressives listen more than any other that don't even mention these issues let alone Uh entertain substantive debates with very few exceptions Because the president who's presiding over them himself is is a democrat and there's no partisan gain and so it's not even that Um, you know, there's debates that are held and americans decide they favor these things.
It's at the news outlets that inform most Of the citizenry or that purport to inform them Simply exclude discussion of most of these issues from from from their agenda altogether, right?
Yep, well, that's how it works.
I kind of chuckled when I saw that they're going to try to pass this thing to re-legalize the outright dissemination of propaganda to the american people Uh seems to me like they're doing just fine with viacom and abc disney and whatever the hell out there ted turner Whatever ruling what americans think they're doing just fine and they couldn't do anything But make it more ham-handed and obvious, you know what I mean?
It seems like it'll probably backfire I hadn't written about that that bill and in part it was because my reaction really was it just would seem so redundant As you say they have these corporate media outlets that do the work for them I'm, actually in the process of trying to interview the congressman the democratic congressman from washington Adam smith is the chief co-sponsor of that bill.
Um and trying to Not alarm them that i'm too much of an opponent of this so that I can lure him into an interview Um, but they sent me this sort of position statement, um, you know saying that it's only going to allow honest and factual information You know to be to be disseminated.
I mean itself the most the most rank form of propaganda I hope they bring back the trumpets from the old movie tone news The north vietnamese attacked us for no reason in the gulf of donkin I actually have that clip somewhere Anyway, i'm, sorry i've kept you away every time.
Thank you so much for your time glenn.
It's great.
Talk to you Everybody that's the heroic glenn greenwald salon.com/opinion/greenwald And his latest book of course is liberty with liberty and justice for some
