04/22/13 – Jason Leopold – The Scott Horton Show

Hey everybody, Scott Horton here.
Ever think maybe your group should hire me to give a speech?
Well, maybe you should.
I've got a few good ones to choose from, including How to End the War on Terror, The Case Against War with Iran, Central Banking and War, Uncle Sam and the Arab Spring, The Ongoing War on Civil Liberties, and of course, Why Everything in the World is Woodrow Wilson's Fault.
But I'm happy to talk about just about anything else you've ever heard me cover on the show as well.
So check out youtube.com/scott horton show for some examples and email scott at scott horton.org for more details.
See you there.
So next guest on the show today is our friend Jason Leopold.
He is lead investigative reporter at truthout.org.
He's the author of the memoir News Junkie and he's been keeping up with events at Guantanamo Bay.
Barack Obama's Guantanamo Bay.
Welcome back to the show, Jason.
How are you doing?
Doing well, Scott.
Thanks for having me back on.
Well, I really appreciate you joining us here and I read a headline.
Where was it somewhere?
I didn't even get a chance to read the article.
I admit to you guiltily that half now of the population of Guantanamo Bay is participating in this hunger strike.
Yeah, and that's actually what the government's official numbers.
You know, when we spoke previously, just a couple of weeks ago, all of the Guantanamo prisoners have indicated to their lawyers or indicated very early on that there already was a prison-wide mass hunger strike taking place as far back as, you know, February.
The government defines an official, you know, hunger striker as one who misses nine consecutive meals.
And, you know, then you're classified as, you know, as an official hunger striker.
But after, now the numbers by the government's tally have, you know, they're saying that it's 84.
So already we have, at least according to the government, more than half the population at Guantanamo participating in this hunger strike.
And the numbers skyrocketed, at least again on the government's side, since the raid that took place last week in which all prisoners who were living in the communal Camp 6 were moved into isolation in that camp.
So, you know, where many saw that, or many lawyers and other observers saw that move by Joint Task Force Guantanamo as an attempt to break the hunger strike, it only led to, you know, more hunger strikers participating in the protest.
And it's actually getting to the point now where, you know, the lawyers are saying that, you know, prisoners are falling unconscious.
They are being moved to the hospital.
You know, there are 17 at this point that are being force-fed the nutritional supplement.
And sure, just to keep them alive.
Man, and then, yeah.
Now describe what that means, being force-fed.
Well, you know, first of all, let me just say that it's a...
There have been, you know, medical professionals who have described this as a form of torture.
And what it entails is that, you know, prisoner is literally strapped down to a restraint chair and a tube or tubes are, you know, shoved up their nose into their stomach.
And the, you know, the nutritional supplement, and sure, it's just, you know, poured through.
It's a very, very excruciating, you know, way to eat for lack of another description.
And, you know, the officials at Guantanamo say, oh, you know, this is, you know, this follows federal Bureau of Prison Guidelines.
And it does, but it also is, you know, very painful.
And, you know, it doesn't allow, you know, the prisoners to obviously, you know, more or less take control of their own destiny, in a sense.
I mean, they're mounting this protest.
It's all they have, the only power that they have left.
And, you know- Yeah, but you're asking my audience to sympathize with a terrorist, Jason, come on.
Right.
You know, it's funny, Scott, over the past week, certainly since the, you know, bombings took place in Boston.
And let me just remind, you know, your listeners that one week ago today, there was this astounding op-ed in the New York Times.
Just a very moving op-ed that carried the byline of one of the Guantanamo prisoners.
And it basically, the way the New York Times came to publish it is that, you know, this prisoner told his lawyer what was happening inside Guantanamo, what it was like for him.
And then the lawyer, you know, this was an unclassified, you know, phone call that he had with his prisoner, then presented it to the New York Times.
And so it was sort of a firsthand account.
And he described the process of being force-fed, how painful it was, how demoralizing it was.
And, you know, that op-ed ran on the same week of, you know, the bombings took place.
And when it ran, it was just everyone, I mean, it just received widespread coverage.
It really sort of changed the tone, Scott, about, you know, the way the public looked at Guantanamo and got them to pay attention to it again.
But now, after the fact, you know, after we're, you know, we're hearing these stories now of the two suspects, and perhaps they were involved in some, you know, sort of, you know, jihad.
And even though there's no evidence, the tone has again changed.
Well, you know, that Guantanamo, you know, should stay open.
And in fact, everyone there is a terrorist, as you jokingly, I'm sure, you know, just noted.
You know, the fact is, is that they're not.
They're, you know, many, more than half have already been cleared for release back to their homelands or other countries.
Wait a minute, say that again?
Yes, believe it or not.
Many have been, you know, cleared for release.
Shocker Armour is one of the high profile prisoners in Guantanamo.
He is the last UK prisoner at Guantanamo.
He's been cleared for release for six years.
Six years.
You know, he's a British resident.
His family lives there in, you know, in England.
And he's been cleared for release.
However, he's only been cleared for release back to Saudi Arabia, which he doesn't want to go to Saudi Arabia.
So if he, you know, if he were to leave, that's where they would send him.
And, you know, the belief is that if he were in Saudi Arabia, he would be arrested and, you know, and jailed there.
And that's the only place that the US, you know, would agree to send him to.
It's my understanding based on conversations I've had with, you know, with various lawyers and people close to, you know, Shocker Armour, is that, you know, part of the reason that the US wants him to go there is so he keeps his mouth shut.
He doesn't talk about anything.
I mean, he speaks perfect English.
So, you know, he'll go there and he'll be prohibited from, you know, from discussing this.
But, you know, just to get back to the point, I mean, these prisoners, more than half are now on, at least according to the government, are on a hunger strike.
We can assume that that number is obviously much higher.
And I think safely assume that.
It's one of those instances where it's okay to assume.
And in addition, more than half have already been cleared for release and they've been cleared for many, many years, Scott.
So at this point, this is the ultimate exit plan for them.
They're willing to starve themselves to death.
And the numbers are just, you know, continuing to go up.
And there's just literally no end in sight to this.
All right.
Now, I want to believe that there's some reform right-wingers, at least in the sense that right-wingers are no longer in power.
Now it's that dastardly, whatever, whatever, Barack Obama, the Democrats.
And so right-wingers got very little reason to have faith in the state right now.
So maybe there are people who are brand newly willing to find out just whoever was put at Guantanamo in the first place, because it wasn't until, what, 2005 or two.
Yeah, 2005 that the CIA closed down the black sites and brought anyone who actually knew Osama that they had captured to Guantanamo Bay.
But who was there before that?
Yeah, I mean, it's true.
I mean, it's, you know, the black, when the black sites were closed down, the last, you know, prisoners that, you know, were in custody of the CIA, those who just didn't die, because there are many that are missing.
There are still missing CIA prisoners.
But, you know, many of the high-profile ones brought to Guantanamo.
Look, you know, I think at this point, it's why I mentioned that New York Times op-ed.
It was the one, you know, the one story that really seemed to connect with people, to get them to, you know, with the public, to get them to sympathize.
But, you know, it was sort of met with complete silence by the White House and Democratic lawmakers.
You know, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, he was asked about Guantanamo.
He was asked about the hunger strike within the past week, week and a half.
And, you know, his response is, you know, Obama, the president remains committed to shutting down Guantanamo.
That's it.
That's the extent of, you know, of the response.
Yeah, he's willing to do absolutely nothing to see it through.
Right.
That's it.
There's nothing that's being done, Scott.
Nothing at all.
And, you know, I think I mentioned in our last discussion that under the National Defense Authorization Act, because the White House constantly says, well, this is Congress.
It's their fault.
They tied our hands.
But in the National Defense Authorization Act, it allows the, you know, for a waiver to remove many of the restrictions that would have prohibited the president from acting on, you know, releasing the prisoners who have been cleared for relief.
So there, you know, there is that waiver that's already in there within the, you know, within the NDAA.
So he could do it.
The Secretary of Defense could act on this.
Well, and even without that, he's the commander in chief.
If he can start a war with Libya, if he can fund al-Qaeda in Syria, oh, accidentally fund al-Qaeda in Syria for two years straight, then he can sure as hell order a prison closed down and those guys move somewhere.
And he can sure as hell tell the cameras to tell the Republicans, impeach me then if you don't like it and let's have a fight.
Give me a break.
Yeah, it's not a priority.
I mean, it comes down to this.
It's not a priority whatsoever.
The administration within the past week continues to wag its finger at other countries for human rights abuses, particularly Russia.
You know, I'm sure that you're aware of the, you know, of the story that has come out in which I believe it's sanctions that were implemented against various officials in Russia for human rights abuses.
Which is just laughable considering the human rights abuses that are currently taking place now.
I mean, as a reporter, I need to constantly remind people when I get into the discussion about Guantanamo and what's happening there is that indefinite detention itself is an abuse of human rights.
I mean, that has been well-established.
I mean, keeping individuals detained indefinitely in a prison that is outside of the law is an abuse of human rights.
We actually criticize, I shouldn't even say criticize, we go after other countries that do exactly that.
Well, and at this point, Obama claims, and I guess the Congress gave him this in the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which he signed, but he claims the authority, whether a civilian trial or a military commission down at Guantanamo, that he can, in effect, override any acquittal by continuing to hold whoever he wants for the rest of their life anyway.
That's right.
I mean, that's what was so funny about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when the discussions were taking place about where he would be, where that trial would take place.
And the question came up, well, what happens if a jury in a civilian court, Article III court, finds him acquits or he's not guilty?
And Eric Holder and Barack Obama both said, well, these are the things that we can do, which is what you just indicated.
We could still hold him.
That will never happen.
He's guilty.
He'll get the death penalty.
So it's certainly a lot of window dressing, a lot of statements that are being made of what we stand for, but really not.
So right now, there's a humanitarian crisis at Guantanamo.
And even the officials at Guantanamo at this point, Scott, believe that there's going to be a death there very soon, that prisoners are going to die.
I mean, this just can't keep going the way it's going.
And two months ago, they were dismissing, outright dismissing, that there was a mass hunger strike taking place.
And this is the biggest hunger strike, the lengthiest hunger strike, that's taking place at Guantanamo.
Back in 2005, the prison held at that point, I think maybe five, 600 prisoners.
So you had more than 200 participating.
But it didn't go on for as long as this one is happening, or as long as this one has been taking place, which started very early February.
And here we are, approaching the beginning of May.
And if anybody, I mean, right now on CNN, on mute, thank God I don't have the closed captioning on, Alan Dershowitz is on there, presumably endorsing the torture of the Boston Marathon suspect or whatever.
But they just won't talk about this at all.
And if they did, the entire slant would be, oh my God, are you kidding me?
You want us to care about anybody at Guantanamo this week?
Forget it.
Well, it's interesting, Scott.
I have a story coming out today.
And the story that I have coming out today on Guantanamo, on what's taking place there, it's a very lengthy narrative about- That's truthout.org, everybody.
Yes, truthout.org.
And the story is, I put together a narrative and he used the unclassified notes from various Guantanamo attorneys to more or less hopefully provide the most definitive account of how the hunger strike happened and what's currently taking place.
And basically, when the attorneys go to meet with their clients, the prisoners, they are writing down everything that they say.
And it's truly heartbreaking, but it's also shows that what the official, at least calls into question the official narrative.
And all of their stories are very consistent.
So it seems that it's just a bad week to run it.
But I'm sure that you recall a time where the public was able to sort of manage many different news stories at once.
But everything that's taking place and being discussed, revolving around what happened in Boston last week, and asking people to care about other human beings, no matter what color they are or look like, it actually seems impossible.
And that is actually the response I've received, privately from some people like, what, you want us to care about this stuff?
Forget it.
It's at the point, like I said, 84, that's the official number, 17 being force-fed, prisoners falling unconscious, being held in isolation, they're in the hospital, they're now down to double-digit weights.
It was, many of them were hovering around 150, 170.
Now you have some that are 90 pounds.
I mean, this is...
Well, you know what?
I'm sorry, it always ends up like this, doesn't it?
We got to talk about the Democrats.
And I don't just mean the politicians, but I mean the voters.
And the question at this point is, did they ever care?
Or it was just a fun bludgeoning to beat George Bush over the head with?
And, or is it that they did care, but just not more than they love Obama and would refuse to ever criticize him?
Because the outrage, I mean, there are...
Pardon me, because I'm not trying to sell out, you know, real activists on the Guantanamo issue who are very good on this issue to this day, all politics aside.
But I just mean, in general, the popular, very bad feeling about Guantanamo on the very generally defined left seems to have evaporated.
You know, I think that's a fantastic question, Scott.
I think that's such an important question.
And it's certainly for me, as someone who's covered this for nearly a decade, you know, I've pondered that for quite some time.
And I have to say that, as you noted, there are certainly, you know, activists and people that you can, you know, that I've encountered, particularly over the past, say, four years since Obama has, or, you know, four and a half years since Obama has, you know, has been president, who have always been passionate about these issues, have always been passionate about civil liberties, human rights.
I mean, these are real issues that they are working on.
But then you have those that have been silent, who were very vocal during the Bush years.
And, you know, taking another look at it, it really leads me to believe that these folks are, you know, it was all political to them.
It was, you know, at least during George Bush, it was, as you said, you know, something to beat them over the head about.
I actually don't think that they, you know, they really cared about it, or understood, you know, the legal ramifications.
It was simply something to politicize and, you know, attack that administration.
Because otherwise, it just really doesn't make sense why those same groups, those same writers, even, you know, the same journalist who, or pundit, would just be completely silent when it's taking place under this administration.
And it even goes beyond that, Scott, because it goes beyond what's happening at Guantanamo.
You know, it extends to the drone strikes and the way in which the, you know, administration, this administration appears to be working outside of the law or not sharing, you know, legal memos, you know, that justify its action.
So it's, I think that it's certainly, you know, we need to protect our guy.
And our guy is Barack Obama.
And, you know, it doesn't matter.
The issues itself don't matter.
And by the way, the constitution is absolutely definitive on this.
I mean, this entire thing has been a joke since David Addington started puking it up on the afternoon of September 11th.
Right, yeah, yeah.
Of course it is.
I mean, you know, that's why it's so amazing to cover this story and cover it, not just from, you know, the standpoint of like, okay, this is a human rights issue, but then, you know, working inside and covering it as a political issue and listening to the various statements, comments coming out of, you know, from lawmakers, from the administration about human rights.
I mean, Senator Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, about a week ago, he issued a statement based on the Supreme Court's ruling.
In which they rejected, you know, attempts by individuals in Nigeria who were tortured.
And this was connected to Shell Oil Company, you know, and payment that they were making to warlord there and the torture that took place.
And so Patrick Leahy, you know, was very critical of the Supreme Court's decision.
And in his statement, in his comment, press release that he put out, he said, you know, it goes against the, I'm paraphrasing here, but, you know, he said that, you know, the decision goes against, you know, what the U.S. stands for.
And we're a champion, a champion of human rights.
And it's, I don't even know how to respond to that.
But the sad part is, is that the vast majority of the public, I think they actually believe that.
I think they actually believe that we're, you know, we still remain a champion, you know, of human rights.
Well, that's what exceptionalism means, is that sins become virtues.
Yes, that's exactly it.
I mean, at this point, it's all about exceptionalism.
And it's, you know, it's very consistent.
This, you know, the way that the Bush administration kept saying it's not torture.
It's been, it's enhanced interrogation technique.
You know, this administration is saying, you know, we're a champion of human rights, where, you know, we're not killing children.
We're not, you know, with these drone strikes.
I mean, it's amazing what the public is just willing, you know, to lap up.
And it's stunning that, you know, all of these important issues are just, you know, another, they're just simple political issues that the public can sort of just, or at least supporters can simply put on a different hat.
Well, if it's happening under this president, it's fine by me because he's my guy.
You know, and- I'm sorry, Jason, I got to interrupt you.
We got to go.
And the phone went bad again, which is the same thing that happened during the Jim Bovard interview.
Can you still hear me okay?
I can hear you perfectly.
Okay, but you sound terrible to me.
It's something on this end, at least now I know that since it's two interviews in a row.
Hopefully we'll be able to get away with our third interview.
But thanks very much for your time and for your great journalism.
Can you tell us the name of your article that will be up very soon sometime today at truthout.org?
I can.
It is inmates rising.
Inmates rising.
Yeah.
Okay, great.
I'm sorry.
You sound horrible.
We got to leave it at that.
But thank you so much for your time, Jason.
I really appreciate it.
Thanks.
God, take care.
All right.
And it's totally my fault that he sounds bad, that you sound bad.
Sorry about that.
I don't know what's going on there.
What is going on there?
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.
At 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.
Hey, y'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.
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 and 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, y'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.