04/01/13 – Jason Leopold – The Scott Horton Show

Man, you need some Liberty Stickers for the back of your truck.
At LibertyStickers.com, they've got great state hate, like Pearl Harbor was an inside job.
The Democrats want your guns.
U.S. Army, die for Israel.
Police brutality, not just for black people anymore.
And government school, why you and your kids are so stupid.
Check out these and a thousand other great ones at LibertyStickers.com.
And of course, they'll take care of all your custom printing for your band or your business at TheBumperSticker.com.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is Scott Horton Show.
Find my full interview archives at scotthorton.org.
And you can find me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at slash Scott Horton Show.
Of course, we're live here on no agenda Monday through Friday, less Thursday from 11 to 1 Texas time, 12 to 2 Eastern.
And let me say real quick, before we introduce our first guest, I saw they're talking about in the chat room.
And I'm not saying that you were saying otherwise, but I just want to make sure that the audience knows when it comes to this North Korea stuff.
There's no such thing as a suitcase nuke.
Certainly not as produced by the North Koreans.
But the smallest nuke the Americans ever made was, or the Russians for that matter, was a battlefield artillery nuke device that basically take up the at least the trunk of a Lincoln Continental, something like that.
It's a two man job with many different heavy parts, et cetera, et cetera.
Some guy just walking around carrying a nuclear bomb is Hollywood stuff.
No such thing for real.
And if you want to read about that, read Gordon Prather, Dr. Gordon Prather at antiwar.com.
And he will dispel all of those silly fears for you.
OK, now our first guest on the show today is the great Jason Leopold from truthout.org.
How are you doing, Jason?
Welcome back to the show.
Hey, Scott.
Great to be back with you.
Thanks for having me on.
Good deal.
Well, I'm very happy to have you here.
And man, this is some bad news, though.
Deja vu.
Defense officials downplay growing Guantanamo hunger strike with Bush era talking points.
First of all.
Yeah.
First of all, the facts.
And then we'll get to the politics.
Sure.
Well, you know, this is this hunger strike started apparently, you know, in early February.
And, you know, the public, as you know, I'm not trying to criticize them, but there's a short attention span there in terms of, you know, what what's been happening over the years.
There have been many hunger strikes like Guantanamo over the years.
In fact, there are prisoners who've been, you know, hunger striking for, I think, six or seven years at this point.
But, you know, this one parallels one that took place in 2006.
And if you recall, Scott, I know you've spoken about it before.
That was one that preceded the three suspicious deaths that happened in June of 2006 and which three detainees were, you know, alleged to have committed suicide.
OK, now we need to go ahead and we need to go ahead and mention here, for discrepancy's sake, that this was reported by the other Scott Horton, heroic anti-torture human rights lawyer and contributing editor at Harper's Magazine.
The Guantanamo suicides.
I just want to make sure nobody confused the issue that I was the one who did that work.
Yeah, yeah.
And that started, by the way, in that hunger strike started in May of 2006 when, you know, according to the government's narrative, guards were doing a walkthrough on some of the cell blocks.
They found a prisoner foaming at the mouth.
They then found other prisoners unconscious.
And it turns out that they, you know, allegedly took, you know, tried to overdose on medication that they had hoarded.
And so what happened was Admiral Harry Harris, the one who famously said that the three suicides were alleged suicides, was an act of asymmetrical warfare.
He ordered a walkthrough.
Meaning what now?
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold on now.
What does that even mean?
Asymmetrical warfare.
People killing themselves.
It's not like we're talking about they blew up a checkpoint somewhere and including themselves.
Yeah, I think that's basically, you know.
Just to make us look bad.
Is that what he's saying?
Yeah, exactly.
That's it.
That's exactly what he was trying to suggest.
They killed themselves just to make us look bad.
OK, just so I understand.
And he went further to say that, you know, they had no regard for other people's lives or their own lives.
And, you know, before that happened, three weeks before that happened, you know, after these prisoners were found unconscious, he ordered a shakedown of all the cells.
And he alleged that during that shakedown, guards found that prisoners were hiding drugs, medication in their bindings of their Koran or Korans, among other places.
For example, a prosthetic leg, you know, one prisoner had a prosthetic leg and they claimed that, you know, he was hiding, you know, medications there.
So the handling of the Korans, the fact that it was touched and searched led to a riot and then led to, you know, a hunger strike.
That is sort of a context with my story where I'm trying to draw the parallels between what happened back then and now.
Because in February, you know, there was another or late January, early February, there was another sort of search that was taking place.
And again, you know, the prisoners' Korans were searched.
This time they were searched by interpreters, translators.
But the fact that they were touched at all is what the, you know, the prisoners were protesting about.
They weren't saying that they were desecrated.
That is the sort of disinformation that I believe that, you know, Joint Task Force Guantanamo was putting out.
Because the prisoners are basically saying, the fact that you guys are touching our Korans at all is what, you know, is what they were protesting about.
And those searches, okay, were the result of the death last September, which we spoke about, I believe, of Adnan Latif.
So Adnan Latif was a Yemeni prisoner who was cleared for release, never should have been in Guantanamo.
And he died last September.
And the cause of death was suicide.
And the government claims that he hoarded medications and he took a lethal dose.
He collected enough for a lethal dose and killed himself.
And so, you know, you have the new, you have two new senior officials at Guantanamo, the commander of JPS, Gitmo, and the commander of the Joint Detention Group.
And the commander of the Joint Detention Group has been the one that's been really, you know, enforcing these standard operating procedures in terms of, you know, we need to crack down, you know, on these prisoners.
And that started happening, you know, shortly after Latif's death, because what was happening was an investigation was going on.
And the United States Southern Command Joint Task Force, Guantanamo's higher command, started investigating the death of Adnan Latif.
And that report is finished.
It was finished in mid-November.
And it concluded that, you know, he was, or rather the standard operating procedures were not followed.
I think there's a lot of questions that remain, but so they stepped up searches.
They started to really crack down and start, and they started seizing personal belongings, letters, eyeglasses, isomats, which is sort of like a foam mattress pad.
And then that led to the, you know, the search of the Krans and hunger strike.
It's now taken on.
That's the long sort of background, but it's now taken on, you know, the prisoners at this point, they're now sort of hunger striking, not just over that, but over their indefinite detention in general.
So that's sort of the, you know, the message at this point is like, look, we've been in here for 12 years.
You haven't charged us.
We're not on trial.
Half are cleared for release.
At this point, they're saying, you know what?
We're ready to die.
We're willing to die, you know, over the fact that you continue to hold us indefinitely.
So that's, you know, what's happening at this point, and it's getting bad.
You know, I can tell you that the, you know, that the government is still sort of claiming that, you know, this is not a big deal.
They're all, you know, all the prisoners are liars.
They make up stories.
They're trying to get media attention.
And when they, you know, I seized on the media attention because it was very, very familiar to me, that statement.
And that's when I looked back and saw that it's the exact same, nearly word for word, Scott, same message that was being put out back in 2006 during that last hunger strike, that last big one.
And, you know, much to my surprise, was actually put out by the same person, you know, who was the spokesman over at, you know, Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
And, you know, of course, he's, you know, his job is to, you know, speak to the media.
So, but that's the message that's being put out there.
And, you know, and it begs the question as to why?
Why are they saying that?
And I think that it's, you know, it's important for the public to realize that, look, you know, the prisoners are alleging that this is, there's nothing different at this point.
Nothing has changed from seven years ago.
And the attorneys are trying to make that point as well.
And then you go to look at, you know, when you look at the public or the official government response, you can see like, yeah, it's exactly the same.
Yeah, well, I mean, and that's the thing, too.
If you're held at Guantanamo, that already really sucks.
But then you have a new president that comes in saying, I'm going to close Guantanamo, make sure everybody gets a review, a fair review process to see this and that.
It's not a fair trial, some kind of hope for redress.
And then, oh, yeah, you know what?
The Republicans said that they would call me names if I did that.
So never mind.
And then that's it.
And so now you can go ahead and write.
Oh, and by the way, if you ever do get a military commission and they acquit you, I'm still going to hold you off for the rest of your lives anyway.
And so how do you like that?
You completely captured it.
That's exactly what, you know, what the response has been.
And, you know, that's why you can see how that's pretty soul crushing.
That's worse than just being indefinitely detained, right?
Indefinitely detained and jerked around all the time.
I would have to think that it is, you know, it's it's I mean.
I was looking as I was putting this story together, Scott, I was looking back on, you know, historically, hunger strikes in general.
What do they mean?
Why, you know, why do prisoners hunger strike?
Why do they hunger strike up in Pelican Bay here in California, you know, at the at the prison there?
And it's, you know, it's sometimes a, you know, political message.
I think that I'm sure your listeners probably remember or I'm sure they remember, you know, Bobby Sands and and the IRA.
I believe he, you know, starved to death, you know, over the fact that, you know, the conditions of his confinement and, you know, they're doing the same thing here.
And all they have, all these prisoners have is is this is our only form and most effective means of protest is is hunger striking to get their message out.
And, you know, I should also note that they are aware of what the government response is and certainly, you know, how it's being portrayed.
The reason that the prisoners are more aware is because they actually get the news.
They do see that the government is putting out these talking points that are identical to what happened in 2006.
But they also see that this has received widespread coverage.
You know, Guantanamo has not been in the news for a very long time on this scale.
So they see that.
And that's actually sort of empowering them, if you will, because they they realize that, wow, we can, you know, obviously get a message out there.
So they're committed at this point to, you know, to continue it.
And it's it's really appears to be getting, you know, worse and worse as the as the days and weeks go by.
There is absolutely no it does not appear to be any end in sight.
The prisoners have said, look, allow us to surrender, surrender our Korans and, you know, we'll start eating again.
But that demand has been shot down because, you know, the Joint Task Force Guantanamo officials say it would appear that it could be interpreted that we're denying prisoners their, you know, religious materials, which they have the right to.
So there is a there's a standoff at this point.
But, you know, beyond that, I don't even think that would ultimately end it.
At this point, they're saying, you know what?
Charge us or, you know, we're just going to starve to death.
And from what I understand, have not been able to confirm it because Joint Task Force Guantanamo won't provide the details that, you know, at least one prisoner has already attempted suicide.
So it's like I said, in 2006, what happened was is three prisoners, you know, three weeks after the start of a hunger strike were found dead.
One guard named Staff Sergeant Joe Hickman, Joseph Hickman, he's the one who came forward providing evidence suggesting foul play.
And, you know, there's that.
Sort of possibility, the possibility that I'm referring to the fact that, you know, deaths could happen here.
So it's this is serious.
This is a really, really big deal.
And now I've been reading that the lawyers have been contradicting the government when it comes to and a few times back and forth, back and forth about just how many prisoners are actually participating in this hunger strike at this point and the different camps involved, et cetera, like that.
Can you fill in those details for us?
Sure.
So, you know, the government at first came out, I want to say late February when reporters started getting word of, hey, there's a hunger strike happening, you know, and it involved 15 prisoners or at that point, the response by the government response given to me was, oh, this is ridiculous.
You know, there's no there's no widespread hunger strike.
Nobody's this is not, you know, a prison wide hunger strike.
There's a few hunger strikers and they hunger strike, you know, for they go on a hunger strike for various reasons.
And literally, this is what was said, such as refusing, you know, a certain brand of breakfast cereal.
So really dismissing it, you know, the lawyers saying, listen, we're hearing from our clients that it's camp, you know, it's a prison wide hunger strike at Camp Six, which is the communal camp where, you know, the prisoners can sort of interact with each other.
Camp Five is more of the maximum security camp where, you know, many are held in isolation.
And so, you know, the numbers started to dramatically increase from the government side.
First, it was four, then six and 11 and 15 and 22.
Then, you know, now it's up to 39, you know, so that kept increasing.
But the lawyers kept saying, no, everyone but two, everyone but two prisoners are on a hunger strike now.
Camp Seven, just to point out, is the is the camp that holds high value prisoners, the the ones that were in custody of the CIA.
So nobody knows what's happening over there.
The ones who might actually have been friends with bin Laden and Zawahiri at some point, as opposed to everybody else who was just some guy who got nabbed.
Exactly.
And, you know, in terms of, you know, at this point, what's being said is there's, you know, the government or rather the government is continuing to say it's not, you know, camp wide or it's not prison wide.
It's, you know, now it's up to 39.
But as I as I indicated, their story is changed as the weeks go by.
And, you know, the prisoners are saying to, you know, to their attorneys that it is everyone is on a hunger strike, but but two on Friday, Shocker Amr, who I know you've spoken about before, he is the last British prisoner, Akwa and Tanabo, who has been cleared for release for five years now, but continues to languish at Guantanamo.
He told his attorney and his attorney, Clive Stanford Smith, in a sworn declaration said that they're playing games with the weights and the way that they define who is officially on a hunger strike.
For example, they, you know, allegedly weigh the prisoners while they're wearing shackles.
So that adds a number of pounds, if you will.
They, you know, are basically saying that if you take, you know, they're not counting certain prisoners on a hunger strike if they take a spoonful of honey to keep their sugar levels up.
So the discrepancy is still sort of unresolved.
And part of that problem, as I as I noted in the story, is that, look, the government is telling reporters, you know, the government spokespeople telling reporters, this is, you know, these folks are not telling the truth.
The prisoners are fabricating.
But we as reporters don't have any access, you know, to what's happening at Guantanamo.
There are sanitized tours that, you know, that we can take to view, to visit, you know, how things are sort of or what's happening.
And in fact, you've just been there in Guantanamo in the past, what, couple of months?
I was there at the end of January.
I'm going back in three weeks.
Now, I was there for the military commissions.
So, you know, to cover the pre-trial hearings for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other, you know, alleged co-conspirators of the 9-11 attacks.
And I did not have access to, you know, the detention facility.
They would not allow us, you know, under new rules that they implemented.
If you're there for the military commissions, that's what you're there for.
So we did not get to see the detention facility.
That's an entirely separate tour, you know, that one would have to take.
But as I, you know, but the key word is tour.
You know, it's sort of like, you know, if you're going on a tour of the White House, you know, you're being shown what they want to show you.
Like Walter Durante in the Ukraine in the 1930s.
And there you go.
Perfect.
You know, you're, I mean, it's what they want to present to you.
So the transparency issue is a problem.
And, you know, as I note on my, you know, in this report, even if the government is telling the truth, or if there's any truth to what they're saying, it's hard for us to actually independently verify it, because the entire operation is shrouded in secrecy.
Despite the fact that one of the taglines on the Joint Task Force Guantanamo website is, quote, transparent, safe, legal, humane, transparent.
Those are the four words that's emblazoned at the top of that website.
So, you know, there's no transparency.
And that means that the closest that we come to actually hearing a prisoner's voice are these unclassified notes that attorneys have been providing us during either their telephone conversations or their in-person meetings, you know, with their prisoners when they're there.
That's the closest we come.
And I will tell you that having looked at a wide range of these, you know, of these notes over the past week, they're all really consistent.
They're very consistent in terms of the stories.
So in addition to that, in terms of what they're, you know, describing taking place there, in addition to that, you know, the prisoners are also saying, look, you know, we have acted out in our ways of protesting.
And they've admitted that they've actually splashed guards and even, you know, a delegate from the International Committee of the Red Cross with what's known as a cocktail, a mixture of, you know, feces and urine.
They've admitted that.
But in addition to admitting that, they've also, you know, talked about what's been happening, you know, at least over the past three months that sort of gave rise to this hunger strike.
And it's very consistent because, you know, to me that they have admitted that, quote unquote, bad behavior.
It just makes the story or it just makes what they're saying a bit more credible.
So it's the closest, you know, Sure.
Well, and you can see why you can see why they would do such a thing, right?
Because the Red Cross person, if not the guards, they'll be sure to mention that where other people can hear it.
It's the kind of thing that gets a headline.
And so if you start out an article going, oh, those damn monkeys throwing their feces.
But then you read the thing and then you think, well, geez, I might throw mine, too, in the same situation.
Right.
You know, look, there's no way that I can put myself in the shoes of, you know, some of these of these men that are there.
I mean, I've spoken to some of their families.
OK, and what's come across to me is that they have they have families.
They were just simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
They have, you know, wives and sons and daughters.
And and, you know, like I said, Adnan Latif, perfect example.
He was a frequent hunger strike.
This is a person who should not have been in Guantanamo was cleared for release.
Shocker armor.
You know, he speaks perfect English.
He has been there for 12 years.
Clear for release.
Why is he not?
You know, he's on a hunger strike now.
He lost, you know, about 32 pounds, he says.
Why is why is he there?
So it's is it because he's Yemeni or you don't know?
I think that or at least, you know, let me say what his.
Well, is he an attorney's?
No, but but his attorneys allege that he is being kept there, one, because they want to repatriate him to a place like Saudi Arabia.
OK, he he wants to go home, you know, to, you know, to the UK.
And they want to keep his mouth shut.
You know, when you're released from Guantanamo, you don't get to suddenly, you know, walk up to a newspaper reporter or a television reporter and start telling your story.
You know, you have to sign various documents that basically you would agree that, you know, there was there was no your treatment.
You were treated humanely.
This is this is a guy who would be willing.
You know, Shocker Armour is a person who would absolutely want to talk.
And it's clear that they don't want him to talk.
So now, Scott, in order to again, I'm telling you what's coming from the attorneys via their client.
So I have no firsthand knowledge myself because I've not been able to see anything.
But what they're saying now is that, you know, with the arrival of this new joint detention group commander, that there has been, quote, a return to the rules of 2006.
And 2006 was a pretty brutal time.
That's when, you know, quite a bit of abuse took place.
And now they're saying that in order to break this hunger strike, what they're alleging is happening is that there's been forced cell extractions by the emergency reaction force, that brutal guard force that that has been written about in the past.
Prisoners have been subjected to sleep deprivation, psychological abuse, such as, you know, loud noises at night, temperatures, the temperature in the cell has been turned down to about 60 degrees.
It's very cold, allegedly denied potable water.
And, you know, so they're trying to allegedly break them to get them to, you know, eat again.
And it's starting to, it really is, for those of us who have been covering and paying close attention to Guantanamo, it does appear that we're really, really going backwards to a time when the worst abuses took place.
And, you know, again, when we try to follow up on it, it's, oh, no, they're liars.
This is not happening.
Well, something is happening.
Their stories are all consistent.
Some who are held in isolation obviously can't speak with others, yet they all have the same story.
So it's, this is a public relations disaster for the government.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, there are a lot of ways to torture and brutalize prisoners besides just outright hanging them upside down or keeping them awake for two weeks or, you know, the kind of things that the Bush guys did at Guantanamo.
I mean, it was much more crude and brutal tortures probably in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
At Guantanamo Bay, it was more like CIA, no touch torture, stress positions, you know, chaining, squatting to the floor for a week and that kind of crap.
But there's a lot of ways to abuse and humiliate people short of, you know, a John Yoo memo.
Of course there is.
And, you know, it's interesting that you brought up Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, again, in these notes, these unclassified notes that the, you know, attorneys have provided, you know, the prisoners are saying that, you know, certainly when it comes to, like, for example, the search of Korans, you know, the guards are saying, we search Korans all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And by the way, this is a new rotation, a new guard force that's in place.
So, and I believe they, you know, they were, you know, in Iraq previously.
But I can't be sure of that.
But, you know, so there is a lot of that chatter going on that, hey, this is the way we did it in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And so they're apparently, apparently applying that to what's happening now.
And, you know, it should be noted as well that, you know, I mentioned standard operating procedures.
Look, there are standard operating procedures that do need to be enforced.
You know, if there is truth to the fact that, you know, prisoners are hoarding medication, well, that's obviously an SOP failure.
You know, somebody is not, you know, following the SOP, the standard operating procedure.
So there's no question that it has to be, you know, enforced.
But with that said, you know, they have been indefinitely detained for most of them for 12 years now.
And, you know, as such, the government or the, you know, the military has tried to make them feel comfortable.
How does it make them feel comfortable?
Well, you know, look, they've got satellite television.
They've got Nintendo Game Boy.
They've got all this great food to choose from, all this reading material.
They can have various, you know, items in their cell.
So, you know, trying to make them comfortable, and as a result, they become accustomed to being treated a certain way.
So then you have, you know, a new joint detention group commander and also a new commander of the prison that comes in.
They arrived last year, as well as the rotation of a new guard force.
And suddenly everything, you know, changes.
And so they're like, hey, why are you taking this picture?
Why are you taking my eyeglasses or this letter?
You know, what's happening?
So their, you know, their routines are being, you know, interrupted.
What they've become accustomed to is a point of the protest.
So, you know, I think that's sort of an important context for people to really understand.
You know, again, none of the men, you know, have been charged.
There's only been a few, you know, that have been charged or that are currently on trial before, you know, military commissions.
So, you know, they're used to living a certain way.
And you've got these new people coming in and saying, hey, we're about to change everything.
So it's, and obviously, you know, issues revolving around the Quran are extremely sensitive.
Certainly, of course, you know, as I'm listening to you talk about this stuff, I'm actually just thankful that ABC, CBS and CNN and whoever don't understand any of this at all.
Because if they did, they would be glomming on to just little things like, oh, took his poor baby, took his picture away or checked his Quran for suicide pills or whatever.
Instead of the real point, which is, you know, big protests over little issues in the dungeon they're being held in for the rest of their lives, which is the real context and the real point of the entire protest, nobody's willing to starve themselves to death or or willing to put themselves in a situation where now these thugs are going to be sticking a rubber hose up their nose and down into their stomach in order to pump them full of insure to keep them from dying over.
They took my my magazine or they wouldn't let me watch Family Feud or something like that.
Those are the kinds of things that can set it off, just like, you know, riots in Afghanistan over Koran desecration set it off.
But of course, the real context is combat troops running around everywhere or in prison without trial forever, et cetera.
I mean, that that is ultimately the, you know, the larger issue there.
But I mean, to you, to us, the the issues over like a magazine or a Koran or the type of food we shrug our shoulders at that, you know, what they're protesting over that.
I mean, how could how could we possibly understand that?
Well, relative to being held without trial forever anyway.
Right.
So, you know, so so there, you know, the fact that they are willing to die, you know, over, you know, some of these issues, you really need to understand that this is all they have.
These men are probably going to die at Guantanamo because let's face it, Scott, there is absolutely nothing that is being done to either repatriate, you know, these prisoners, to shutter, you know, the part of Guantanamo that in which they're held, there's nothing being done.
So they and they also see how the public has sort of said goodbye to Guantanamo, the fact that it's not in the news.
And, you know, to me, it was quite stunning to see to see even, you know, every day there's a new story coming out.
This is getting widespread coverage.
It's reigniting the debate and the conversation, you know, about Guantanamo, the way that we treat or the way that we have been treating, you know, these, you know, these prisoners.
So, you know, with regard to CNN and ABC and CBS, I don't think that they would be able, you know, to understand that.
And that's why I started to get real interested as I was, you know, doing the research on, you know, hunger strikes in general.
And, you know, what's what was fascinating to me is that back in the 90s at Guantanamo, when we held the Haitian immigrants there, and that was at a time when we also were basically saying that, you know, the laws, the U.S. laws didn't apply and we could hold them indefinitely, they went on a hunger strike as a result.
So, you know, this history over, you know, conditions of confinement, treatment, it really does show that this is the only real power that anyone, you know, that any of these folks have.
And you can see how, you know, the response to it or the lack of response is just, you know, it's a nightmare because how do they deal with it?
Well, and that leads me to my last question, and it's a stupid one.
Is there a single politician in Washington, D.C. who you think could be prodded into making a peep about this or holding a committee hearing or doing the slightest thing to move the ball forward on closing this damn prison down?
No, absolutely not one single person that I think.
I think that there are some staffers on some of these committees who, you know, have been working really hard to try and get the, you know, lawmakers to, you know, take it up again.
And, you know, obviously this is something that the House and Senate Armed Services Committee would look at.
You know, if you recall back in 2009, I think it was 2009, Carl Levin, you know, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he released that stunning, explosive report about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
It was damning.
But you know what?
He has not, there has not been any oversight hearings held on Guantanamo, and not one lawmaker, Scott, has made a peep about what has been taking place there other than to say that, like, you know, we need to keep it open.
But listen, this is where the, you know, the partisan politics come into play.
If this was George Bush and this was taking place, heck, if this was Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin or anyone else other than, you know, Barack Obama, you can be sure that Carl Levin, John Conyers, and would be firing off press releases.
They're not making, they're not saying a word.
Yeah, there'd be a lot of screaming and pounding of fists at all the liberal blogs and through the rest of the rank and file, too.
But they've all got something better to pay attention to somehow during this.
Yeah, there would be pounding of fists by, you know, the same folks that were pounding their fists at this, you know, when it was happening under George Bush.
Those folks have also been silent.
And I'm talking about the public and as you mentioned, you know, the liberal bloggers.
This isn't a partisan issue.
I mean, this is a human rights issue.
You know, it's a moral issue.
This isn't something where, oh, you know, you throw this into which side are you on?
I mean, look, we, you and I have talked about this.
We put out, our State Department regularly admonishes other governments for the treatment of prisoners in this fashion.
Right.
So it's, again, it comes back to how little credibility we have.
Yeah.
The U.S. government.
That's right.
Yeah.
All right, man.
Thanks for your great work.
It's great.
I appreciate your time on the show, as always.
Thanks.
I appreciate you giving it attention.
All right.
But that is our good friend Jason Leopold from Truthout.org.
He is investigative reporter there.
This latest piece is defense officials playing down defense officials downplay growing Guantanamo hunger strike with Bush era talking points.
And please check out his book, News Junkie.
And the latest from hopeful immigrant to FBI informant, the inside story of the other Abu Zubaydah is now available as an e-book.
You can find the link there at Truthout.org and follow him at Twitter at Jason Leopold.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
Like I told you before, the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org represents the best of the libertarian movement led by the fearless Jacob Hornberger, FFF writers, James Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Wendy McElroy, Anthony Gregory and many more.
Write the op eds in the books, host the events and give the speeches that are changing our world for the better.
Help support the Future Freedom Foundation.
Subscribe to their magazine, The Future of Freedom, or to contribute.
Just look for the big red donate button at the top of FFF.org.
Peace and freedom.
Thank you.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here inviting you to check out wallstreetwindow.com.
It's a financial blog written by former hedge fund manager Mike Swanson, who's investing in commodities, mining stocks and European markets.
Wall Street Window is unique in that Mike shows people what he's really investing in and updates you when he buys or sells in his main account.
Mike thinks his positions are going to go up because of all the money the Federal Reserve is printing to finance the deficit.
See what happens at wallstreetwindow.com.
And Mike's got a great new book coming out.
So also keep your eye on writermichaelswanson.com for more details.
Hey, everybody.
Scott Horton here.
You ought to consider advertising on the show.
Here's how it'll work.
You give me money, and then I'll tell everybody how great your stuff is.
They'll buy it, and we'll all be rich as Republicans.
Sound pretty good?
Shoot me an email, scott, at scotthorton.org, and we'll work it out.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
CNI stands against America's negative role in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war party's relentless push to bomb Iran, and the roles played by twisted Christian Zionism and neocon-engineered Islamophobia in justifying it all.
The Council for the National Interest works tirelessly to expose and oppose our government's most destructive policies, but they can't do it without you.
Support CNI's push to straighten out America's crooked course.
Check out the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org, and click donate under about us at the top of the page.
That's councilforthenationalinterest.org.