Glenn Greenwald « Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette

Scott Horton Interviews Glenn Greenwald

Scott Horton, June 23, 2008

Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment

Glenn Greenwald, blogger at Salon.com and author of Great American Hypocrites, discusses the particulars of the congressional Democrats’ sellout of the 4th Amendment and complete capitulation to the Bush administrations’ lawless wiretapping program and the new realignment for liberty.

MP3 here. (20:59)

Youtube here.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times bestselling books How Would a Patriot Act? and A Tragic Legacy. His brand new one is Great American Hypocrites.

Email This | Print This | Share This | Send a letter to the editor | Letters

Comments to “Glenn Greenwald”

Chris
June 24th, 2008 at 7:23 am

Why do you condescend to Truthers and those who disagree with our foreign policy regarding Israel? I think your listeners get it, you aren’t a fan of 9/11 Truth or discussing Zionism. Your interviews are great and Truthers can be overzealous and OC, but do you think that you are doing yourself or your listeners any favors by making snide comments about them? Why do you even have to bring it up?

And why did you attempt to conflate 9/11 Truth and Zionism? Were Obama/Clinton/McCain groveling before the American Raytheon Public Affairs Committee? Are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt “Jew Haters”? People can oppose the influence and policies of AIPAC and not be bigots ya know. In fact, the real bigots are the ones who champion the policy of “Destroying the Scary Subhumans Over There”, e.g. AIPAC.

Chris
June 24th, 2008 at 7:26 am

And not to say that the banksters and the warmongering welfare complex aren’t extremely powerful, but so is AIPAC.

Scott Horton
June 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Why do you condescend to Truthers and those who disagree with our foreign policy regarding Israel?

-Truthers are idiots and when have I ever been condescending to “those who disagree with our foreign policy regarding Israel”?

I think your listeners get it, you aren’t a fan of 9/11 Truth or discussing Zionism.

-Right. When has the subject of Israel ever come up on my show? Just about never, I guess.

Your interviews are great and Truthers can be overzealous and OC, but do you think that you are doing yourself or your listeners any favors by making snide comments about them? Why do you even have to bring it up?

-Because they were a great example of what I was talking about: People who hated the state in a more or less consistent way, who then went off the deep end in this new era – and made themselves quite worthless in the fight for liberty.

And why did you attempt to conflate 9/11 Truth and Zionism?

-I didn’t. I conflated 9/11 truthers with Jew-hating bigots. (They are quite similar in their evidence-less assertions and jumps to conclusion. Also their intolerance and accusations against those who see through their stupid crap.) You and the ADL say opposition to Likud policy and Jew-hating bigotry are the same thing. I don’t. That’s assuming you were actually referring to “anti-Zionism” when you otherwise incomprehensibly typed the above inanity.

Were Obama/Clinton/McCain groveling before the American Raytheon Public Affairs Committee? Are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt “Jew Haters”? People can oppose the influence and policies of AIPAC and not be bigots ya know. In fact, the real bigots are the ones who champion the policy of “Destroying the Scary Subhumans Over There”, e.g. AIPAC.

-What the hell are you talking about? Are you just talking to yourself over there or what?
You can’t even tell with your eyeballs that you are leaving your comments on *Antiwar.com* – home of The Original Non-Bigoted Criticism of Israel™?

(-See what I mean everyone? 9/11 kooks are ridiculous. The level of evidence that counts for “proof” to them is less than they keep over at Shulsky’s Iranian Directorate at the Pentagon. To a 9/11 kook, a simple denunciation of bigots, becomes an attack on all critics of Israel, a persecutor of Mearsheimer and Walt, an apologist for the Lobby. Even when it’s coming from *me* – and on *these* pages. Next we’ll hear that it’s “absolutely impossible!” that those towers fell from fire and gravity, “everyone knows” a missile hit the Pentagon and every victim of the attacks who called home were actually computer voices impersonating those in on the conspiracy because it’s an indisputable fact that air-phones don’t work on air-planes.)

Ben
June 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I would exhort 9-11 truth activists to refrain from responding to Mr. Horton’s ad hominem attacks in kind. The possibility of government malfeasance in 9-11 is so terrifying that it’s difficult for many people to even consider the possibility, let alone look objectively at the evidence and then discuss it in a calm and civil manner. Of course, rational individuals can and do come to different conclusions about 9-11 after looking at the evidence, but lashing out emotionally at people who simply want a proper criminal investigation and the public release of evidence is a sign of psychological denial. Denial is not a river in Egypt, as they say, but is a powerful psychological defense mechanism against potentially traumatic information.

I would recommend the following interview by Mr. Horton’s anti-war radio host counterpart Carol Brouillet, in which she interviews a panel of practicing psychiatrists and psychological experts on the subject of emotional barriers to a rational discussion of 9-11 evidence:
part 1
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0806/20080616_Mon_Brouillet1.mp3
part 2
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0806/20080616_Mon_Brouillet2.mp3

It is my hope that the anti-war movement will increasingly come to see that supporting a new investigation into 9-11 is far more productive use of energy than bickering amongst ourselves as to what might have happened on that day. A new investigation and a release of evidence is, by far, the most effective way to either ’silence the kooks,’ or put the Bush regime behind bars , depending upon what is uncovered. I would like to think that Mr. Horton would be pleased with either outcome.

1984
June 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Undoubtably there are many in the 9/11 truth movement who are vigorously anti-semitic but I doubt you’d many if any people like that if you for instance read 911blogger for quite some time.
And btw, many truth members are rampant Ron Paul supporters.

There are some facts about 9/11 that are disconcerting:
-There were numerous warnings (so it was anything but something out of the blue)
-The gov didn’t want the event investigated (entirely possible that they had more to hide than their incompetence)
-Once they did then P. Zelikow was hired for the job. He had clear conflict of interest with ties to Condi Rice
-In the PNAC documents the neoconservatives called for new pearl harbor (so they had huge motive, perhaps bigger than AQ)
-WTC7 collapse has still not been explained
-Osama could not have known that the air defense was crippled by major trainings
-The war on terrorism seems to be total bogus:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

Scott
June 24th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Truthers Piss Off! This is not your blog.

the legendary Bill
June 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

All good points 1984…Scott, one fellow American to another: calm down…I can feel 1984’s pain; of course we could always come up with a logical explanation to explain anything..In a haunted house if a picture suddenly flies off the wall and lands on the entre’ table ( perhaps a picture of the grandfather landing next to the picture of his favorite grandchild ) you would undoubtedly say it was the wind..Possible, but we all know damn well it wasn’t the wind..

Scott
June 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Christ. Isn’t anyone going to comment on the Glenn Greenwald interview?

Scott
June 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Ah, might as well…

“The possibility of government malfeasance in 9-11 is so terrifying that it’s difficult for many people to even consider the possibility.”

It is things like this that make me hate 9/11 kooks. Does anyone out there really believe that my profile is one of a man far too frightened – better: too “terrified” – to consider the awful truth. Is that what my years on end of putting my voice out there over the radio and in thousands of mp3s – all for no – or lately, very little – pay proves? And all else who don’t drink the “truth”er flavor-aid are all just sniveling cowards, far too terrified to face the TRUTH?

I have a better theory. 9/11 truthers can’t stand it that reasonable people think they are simply full of shit, so they have to either 1: accuse the heretic of being a coward, too afraid to admit the horrible truth to themselves; 2: accuse the heretic of being a coward too afraid of the Mossad or whatever to “admit” what said heretic Must know to be true, or 3: accuse the heretic of being in on the coverup serving as a gatekeeper helping the evil people to keep the truth from the people.

To a 9/11 kook – and we hear this kind of thing often from them – “there’s just no other explanation!”

I know what you’re thinking: Scott Horton and Glenn Greenwald are part of the conspiracy to distract you from 9/11 truth with lurid tales of widespread lawlessness on the part of the highest levels of our government! Terrible people!

(And please, you humorless goofballs, please spare me the “Nuh, uh. Spying is bad, but it’s all because of the 9/11 was an inside job thing that they can do it!” rap. I get it.)

Ben
June 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

“kooks. Does anyone out there really believe that my profile is one of a man far too frightened – better: too “terrified” – to consider the awful truth.”

Do, let’s consider it! Perhaps a debate is in order?

Surely the relationship between the anti-war and 9-11 truth movements is an issue worth discussing?

After all, John Bolton has recently claimed that Richard Falk’s theories on 9-11 are now “conventional wisdom” among many delegations to the U.N.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369122,00.html

Are those many delegations to the U.N. ‘kooks’ Scott? It must be terrifying to live in a world so full of kookery.

Stuart
June 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Scott’s a disgrace and a COWARD. Why? Get Alex Jones on for an interview–you don’t have the GUTS. He’d show you to be a pathetic smart ass. I feel sorry for you.

Scott
June 24th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Forget that. I like Alex. Knew him years ago. He used to have me on his show to talk about Waco, OKC, etc. back in the old century. And the last thing I want is a personal fight with him. Any disagreement is a personal fight with him.

But as long as I’ve got myself in this mess of arguing with you goofballs, I’d be happy to talk to the 9/11 nut I respect the most. Ry from Anti-Neocons.

I’ll try to get him on sometime this week to go over this shit.

And yes, the UN is full of kooks. And no, I’m not at all terrified. Dummy.

MoT
June 24th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

This is my rule of thumb, and so far it hasn’t failed me. It’s really quite simple: If the government tells me anything, in light of its past history, then it has to be a lie. (insert joke about how to tell if a politician is lying to you…. his lips are moving)

Only over the course of a great deal of time does any “truth” ever vomit forth from their pie holes, a-la Japanese internment and apologies, and only after voluminous fresh lies for sundry other offenses have made its “confession” worthless. Because by that time people have become, yet again, numbed by the never ending torrent of deceit.

The mainstream media simply play the dutiful role of court magicians spinning their spells in order to bamboozle the serfs and please their masters. (see first part) … So we can surmise that they’re likewise lying in order to keep in good favor.

As far as the Greenwald interview goes… Great Job! He points out the obvious, again and again, and I find his articles to be amongst the best. Thanks Scott!

Chris Dodd’s Speech and a Glimmer of Hope for Stopping the FISA Bill - CommonDreams.org
June 25th, 2008 at 6:35 am

[...] surveillance aspects of the FISA bill and the new coalition that has formed and that can be heard here. Today at 2:10 p.m. EST, I’ll be on To the Point with Warren Olney as part of a panel [...]

Ian
June 25th, 2008 at 7:24 am

SWEET! Bringing in Ryan Dawson, that’s good news! I’m with Scott here, actually. Ry’s the only 9-11 investigator who makes even partial sense to me. Splitting hairs over the specifics of 9-11 is RETARDED! Especially when there’s so much evil that’s transpired since then.

Stuart
June 25th, 2008 at 8:46 am

Hey, Scott, still afraid to have Alex Jones on? I guess he’s just a kook and a Nazi. Hey Scott, I think you should visit a shrink.

Stuart
June 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am

Beware of those other 9/11 kooks/Nazis: Steve Jones, University of Utah physicist(fired), von Bulow, German Defense Minister; Christienson, head of CIA operations in Europe; former president of Italy (sorry, I forgot his name), head guy at Underwriters Laboratory (fired, of course); BBC reporting WTC 7 “collapsed” 20 minutes before; see inforwars.com or better yet give Alex Jones a call during his live broadcast (sorrry, if I sound like his PR man).

fukol
June 25th, 2008 at 9:18 am

stuart, alex jones is a spaz & has spun off into left field. 20ish years ago he had extreamly good info & opened many eyes despite the small audience on actv. since, hes gotten derailed by the stardom & is on the tin hat side. look at the people scott has on, jones doesnt fit in with them. could happen if AJ could have a cooled conversation & not let it escalate into an arguement or alex screaming beligerance about bullshit. stuart, are you alex jones proding skot in a ‘preassure from below’ sense?
chris, ben & 1984, we’re all saying about the same thing. dont take offense to scott’s sharp words, he grew up on carlin, hicks & hip hop. he means well.

Stuart
June 25th, 2008 at 11:07 am

Hey fukol, are you saying that 9/11 was not an inside job?? Check out the discussion by experts on the 9/11 collapse today on infowars.com, i.e., thermate accelerants–not found in jet fuel. Hour 2 of show. By the way, Scott’s a smart ass and uses foul language–sign of immaturity (and class?).

Stuart
June 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am

Make that hour 3.

Ben
June 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

re: Scott

Great news! I look forward to your interview with Ryan Dawson. Dawson’s analysis is a good deal more Israeli-centric than most truth movement researchers in my estimation, but he certainly knows his stuff.

If I could make a request for the next time you have a legal expert like Mr. Greenwald on; could you ask about how self-pardoning works, and if there are any possibilities for holding the neo-cons accountable if Bush is not impeached and grants a blanket pardon to his entire administration?

P.S. it tends to make arguments more personal when you call people idiots, just F.Y.I.

Elizabeth
June 25th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I, too, am weary of those who interject their opinions repeatedly and inappropriately take over discussion with so-called 9-11 truth debate on this site. Scott is angry, understandably fed up with this kind of discourse, and not only because when he offers easily checked facts about the events few so-called truthers are willing to recognize these same said facts as solid, but also because of the bait and switch style of these detractors. Life, and politics, isn’t binary, only one of two things, but a mass of grays in between, and it’s precisely in this mucky gray area that we must all seek as much of the truth as is possible. To assert that because there are as yet unanswerable questions about Bldg 7, however, and then make a giant logical leap into the land of zealotry, wanting a certain outcome so much that you ignore any bit of information that doesn’t further your own arguments or beliefs, creates yet more obfuscation. Which leads you no closer to the ‘truth’ because you’ve functionally stopped looking for it, having such a vested interest in only one preordained correct outcome. Smacks of religious fervor to me; not very empirical.

There are many things yet to learn about 9-11. We probably won’t ever uncover the complete story. But it seems such a waste of energy, intelligence and camaraderie to unnecessarily attack those who should be your allies in this battle we are waging against the nasty Powers That Be. How disturbing to be doing their dirty work for them by decimating our own, and how they must cackle about it to witness such things amongst us.

Scott is a passionate political warrior and the work he does is invaluable. If only there were more like him. If he cusses and cuts through the shit with choice language when he becomes fed up, after having presented documented evidence still is confronted by zealot detractors who keep stating the same things over and over again—ad infinitum, it’s elitist, paternalistic, and inauthentic to claim that he’s being immature, frightened, or just heavily influenced by smack talking comics (although I know the person who said this meant well). Passive aggression is also immature, as is pomposity, provocateur behavior, perseveration to the point of exhaustion, as well as refusal to give your debate opponent the kudos they are due when presenting superior evidence.

Looking forward to a genial discussion between Scott and Ryan Dawson.

Now, what was this thread supposed to be about? Oh, yes–Greenwald! Hmm.

Septeus7
June 25th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Scott doesn’t like 911 theories because they are impossible to prove and things like lies about WMD, the police state, torture, the destruction of the constitution are plain to see.

911 makes people irrational and that is last thing Scott wants.

PS I like Ryan Dawson and he’s done some get work on the Israeli spy ring and Scott should definitely talk to him about that issue.

Stuart
June 25th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Gee, you guys/gals are really something else. Alex Jones, David Ray Griffith and many others give the factual refutation of the gov’t. fairy tale and you act as if it’s all wild speculation. You mockers of 9/11 truth are an amazing study in human psychology. This whole off-shoot of Greenwald’s interview occurred because of Scott’s typical smart-ass, derisive comments about 9/11 truthers.

Ryan Dawson
June 26th, 2008 at 12:32 am

Yay well I’m the 911 nut with the most respect lol what an honor.
I’ll be happy to do a show here. I got to agree somewhat with everyone here Scott too. You guys know what I think about 911 and the cover up. But I have to say that what kill 911 truth are 911 “truthers”. The people going around pinning everything on illuminati/freemason/space lizards/the Vatican/ Bavarian death cults/rothschilds etc just makes everything sound so stupid and it stains the hard work of actual investigators who stick to the facts. Chances are when someone scoffs at 911 Truth and I mean someone who knows their shit and is not some goose stepping neocons or pawn of the MSM, when someone like Scott or Chomsky, or fill in the blank rolls their eyes it’s probably because all they have really heard are the worst kookiest “theories” and 50 videos about building 7 and what amounts to little more than sloganeering as obnoxious (well intentions or not) hecklers get tossed out of crowds. Yelling inside job while satisfying is about like yelling bullshit at a religious function. You might be right but you won’t be changing any minds and without the arguments behind it you will just “sound like” a lunatic.

I don’t get the same reaction from others that many 911 truthers have. This is because we really dont have the same theory at other than saying what did NOT happen. Scott and I have had some discussions before well on going e-mailings and I know he has mentioned my other work before on the air such as a report on the Russian Oligarchs and a bit I wrote up about the contracts for body armor. He is not close minded or afraid of thinking outside the box on 911.

The problem 911 Truth has is the huge stigma which has been made because of all the people just throwing around buzz words about the “NWO” and come on guys there is some really far out stuff. This kind of disinfo surrounds the JFK and RFK assassination, the OKC bombing, Area 51, etc. Area 51 is a great example. That is now admitted (by the MSM even) to be a secret military base where much of the starwars pork and aerospace pork was spent. But if you write or talk about the billions which were wasted there you won’t get but a few sentences into it before people assume you’re one of the kooks that believes in anal probing aliens and crop circles. With JFK you got people blaming the mob, the Cubans, the Russian etc.. it takes about three second to know it was not Cuba who would benefit in no way by having LBJ come in. And like building 7, the JFK people focus extensively and lopsidedly on the “magic bullet” where as it is good evidence its not the best and it can be rationalized away. there are much bigger thing like oh JFK’s brain “missing” film (2008) of a second shooter in the RFK murder etc things that if focused on would simply end the debate.

Anyway to stay on topic Greenwald is right about a very simple point that need to be obvious. The Democrats are sell out they are not the opposition party. Many of you tossed out the notion of the two party paradigm a lont time ago but there are many many people still hung up on that dellusion and to start at step one we have to get more people to realize that.

Also everyone Scott and anti-war.com will and does talk about Israel all the time. MOre so than the largest 911 truth sites with the exception of maybe whatreallyhappened which mostly is my stuff anyway on that topic.

Ben
June 26th, 2008 at 3:08 am

Of course you’re right, Ryan, but kooky theories are the inevitable result of secrecy & cover-up. I don’t have much sympathy for blaming the public for having kooky theories in the aftermath of a coverup. If people don’t like crackpot theories, then it is their moral obligation to demand the evidence be released and public trials be held, because that is the ONLY way to stop the speculation.

Will Blalock
June 26th, 2008 at 9:29 am

Greenwald is one of the very best.
Thanks for the interview.
Also, this comment section was equally entertaining!
Great stuff!

Civilianism #60 / Don’t Tread On Us | CIVILIANISM
June 26th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

[...] AntiWar Radio (Entire Glen Greenwald interview) [...]

Septeus7
June 26th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Ry, what do you think about the work of Ralph Schoenman (he’s on WBAI)? I consider his work some of the best.

Will Blalock
June 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Scott, in the interview you didn’t bring up the fact that the FISA
bill also violates Article 1 of the Constitution which prohibits
ex post facto legislation.
The complicit comm companies violated the law and are being
granted immunity ex post facto.
This is not “merely” a violation of the Bill of Rights but a violation
of the very CORE intent of legislative power oulined in the
Constitution.

Scott
June 27th, 2008 at 12:38 am

I wonder about that. They can’t even let people off the hook after the fact? I always thought that was only about criminalizing things. Like, for example, retroactive tax cuts are okay, retroactive tax increases are the Devil.

Will Blalock
June 27th, 2008 at 6:42 am

The violation of privacy was de-criminalized and those
who broke the law were not pardoned, but released
ex post facto. This is in violation of the constitution Article 1.
Greenwald’s input would be very interesting.
Maybe it was a “pardon,” but then I haven’t read the
bill. And besides, if it was a “pardon” then this establishes guilt
and implies
guilt by the President as well since he authorized it.
Does he need a pardon?
The passing of the ex post facto law removes any decision
in this regard. No guilt will ever be established since the
new law removes any guilt, ex post facto.
Get my drift?
This needs to be expounded upon.

Stefan
June 28th, 2008 at 1:59 am

Scott you are absolutely the right person for antiwar: balanced, informed, intelligent etc.
The “911 kooks” have really – no pun intended – unintentionally hurt the Ron Paul campaign (in NH etc.) as some in the media wanted to equate Ron Paul with them and all their conspiracy theories. Dr. Paul has handled and it still handling this the right way as a libertarian, e.g. allow for their 1st Amendment right. The ineptness with 911 should really be researched, as Dr. Paul pointed out.
Relevant website: http://www.paulitesagainsttruthers.com
One should also say those that attacked Iraq under the disguise of WMD also have a certain kookiness…e.g. it is really a kooky idea to think Iraq is going to destroy the US..

You are probably aware of Keith Olbermann’s partisan shill and Glenn Greenwald’s article about it. Olbermann is so one sided and with his betrayal of principle has shown that he is becoming irrelevant and unbelievable.

Stefan
June 28th, 2008 at 2:32 am

Ron Paul & Bob Barr:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHGkt8UF7YM

Stefan
June 28th, 2008 at 2:36 am

disinter: how much as you paid for bashing Barr every day? Did the check arrive as yet? Tell me, is it a lucrative endeavor? You have some tips for me?

Stefan
June 28th, 2008 at 2:51 am

Sorry: last two on wrong thread (irrelevant here).

Treg
June 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

“Jew Hating 9/11 kooks”

Jew hating…. First I have not found ANY such people in the libertarian movement, the RP R3volution, or even among old time conservatives. Second I have not found any of those RED STATE FASCIST Pro-Bush supporters to be Jew Hating. So WHERE is the Jew Hating? Second, I have been around hundreds of these 9/11 truthers and JBS conspiracy types, in the throws of DEBUNKING their ‘evidence’, but NOT ONE was “Jew Hating”. GO to Daily Paul and read my threads on Debunking all such Conspiracies. So Scott, why the unfair Kick? Really? Its so ….so O’Riely or Hannity of you. You are not a pundit like that are you? So take it back. You are YES 100% right that those Red State fascist Conservatives have been fully hypocritical…as in if Clinton invades Bosnia its bad, Bush invades Iraq its good. But as frustrating as it is to speak or write emails to these RED STATE FASCISTS, and I do, they are also not Jew Hating. If anything these Red State fascists are Mexican Hating and Arab/Muslim Hating…more like “Brown People Hating. Furthermore, the emotional source of this “brown hating” comes from the feeling of being invaded, or will be invaded; hence they search for a ‘Top Dog” masculine leader. So Scott, what these Red State fascists really are is Sociopath Sycophants. And I believe this a REAL psychological disposition, a disposition that takes first place in their minds well above ideas, goals, solutions, or ideology. Their initial reaction to Ron Paul and others of our persuasion is one of NOT LIKING WEAKNESS. Its as if they want a super tough ‘Top Dog’ to lead them. Jesse Ventura is just the kind of person that really messes with Red State Fascist Minds. 9/11 Truthers are not Red State Facists. Truthers are those who tend to have personalities that lean on the DSMV scale towards Paranoia and Obsessive Compulsive behaviors.

Knowing this about truthers may help you reason with them. Knowing this about Red State fascists Conservatives may help you reason with them as well. Name calling will not get you anywhere.

In Peace & Liberty,
Treg

Highlights

Breaking News